ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY: An effective and accessible first source of support for second victims (SV) is usually the colleagues themselves, who should have tools to help emotionally and detect the unusual course of a SV. The aim of this work is to assess health professionals' perception of the phenomenon, as well as their capability to apply psychological first aid. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational descriptive study through online surveys answered anonymously. Participants were different health professionals from surgical area, mainly from a third-level hospital. RESULTS: 329 responses, 67 anaesthesiologists, 110 anaesthesiologists in training, 152 nurses. 78.4% had felt SV, more frequent among anaesthesiologists; however, 58% had never heard of the term. Guilt was the most frequent emotion. Residents were more afraid of judgmental colleagues and thought more about drop out their training. From those who sought help, most did it through a colleague, but most did not feel useful in helping a SV. 66% affirmed there is a still punitive, evasive or silent culture about medical incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the frequency of the phenomenon there is still lack of knowledge of the term SV. Impact of the phenomenon is heterogenous and changes based on experience and responsibility. Colleagues are the first source of emotional help but there is a lack of tools to be able to provide it. Institutions are urged to create training programs so that professionals can guarantee «psychological first aid¼.
Subject(s)
Medical Errors , Psychological First Aid , Health Personnel , Humans , Patient Safety , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY: An effective and accessible first source of support for second victims (SV) is usually the colleagues themselves, who should have tools to help emotionally and detect the unusual course of a SV. The aim of this work is to assess health professionals' perception of the phenomenon, as well as their capability to apply psychological first aid. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational descriptive study through online surveys answered anonymously. Participants were different health professionals from surgical area, mainly from a third-level hospital. RESULTS: 329 responses, 67 anaesthesiologists, 110 anaesthesiologists in training, 152 nurses. 78.4% had felt SV, more frequent among anaesthesiologists; however, 58% had never heard of the term. Guilt was the most frequent emotion. Residents were more afraid of judgmental colleagues and thought more about drop out their training. From those who sought help, most did it through a colleague, but most did not feel useful in helping a SV. 66% affirmed there is a still punitive, evasive or silent culture about medical incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the frequency of the phenomenon there is still lack of knowledge of the term SV. Impact of the phenomenon is heterogenous and changes based on experience and responsibility. Colleagues are the first source of emotional help but there is a lack of tools to be able to provide it. Institutions are urged to create training programs so that professionals can guarantee «psychological first aid¼.
Subject(s)
Agrobacterium tumefaciens , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Lung Abscess/microbiology , Pneumonia, Necrotizing/microbiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Lung/microbiology , Lung/pathology , Lung Abscess/drug therapy , Lung Abscess/pathology , Male , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Middle Aged , Necrosis , Pathology, Molecular , Pneumonia, Necrotizing/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Necrotizing/pathology , RNA, Bacterial/analysis , RNA, Ribosomal, 16S/analysis , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to compare the galactomannan antigen (GA) and molecular biology (PCRrt) tests with the culture in the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (IA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four hundred and seventy two samples were analyzed: 388 respiratory and 84 serum samples from 271 patients. Culture and GA were evaluated in the respiratory samples and GA in the serum samples. PCR was used when discrepancies were observed among culture and GA tests. RESULTS: The detection of GA in serum was positive in 22 (of 84), 21 had the test positive respiratory sample. Of the 62 sera with negative GA, 45 were also negative respiratory specimens. The culture was positive in 37 of which were positive for GA. Comparing culture with AG, it showed PPV=23%, NPV=100%, S=100% and E=52%. The PCR showed respect to culture: PPV=69%, NPV=89%, S=64% and E=82%. In sera were found in 60% discrepancies between PCRrt and GA. CONCLUSIONS: We consider useful the GA detection in serum combined with culture and GA in respiratory samples, for diagnosis of AI. PCR requires further studies for standardization and set breakpoints.
