Action after Adverse Events in Healthcare: An Integrative Literature Review

Mari Liukka, Alison Steven, M Flores Vizcaya Moreno, Arja M Sara-aho, Jayden Khakurel, Pauline Pearson, Hannele Turunen and Susanna Tella
Additional contact information
Mari Liukka: Department of Nursing Science/Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, 70211 Kuopio, Finland
Alison Steven: Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7XA, UK
M Flores Vizcaya Moreno: Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
Arja M Sara-aho: Faculty of Health Care & Social Services, LAB University of Applied Sciences, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
Jayden Khakurel: Research Center for Child Psychiatry, University of Turku, 20500 Turku, Finland
Pauline Pearson: Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7XA, UK
Hannele Turunen: Department of Nursing Science/Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, 70211 Kuopio, Finland
Susanna Tella: Department of Nursing Science/Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, 70211 Kuopio, Finland

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 13, 1-18

Abstract: Adverse events are common in healthcare. Three types of victims of patient-related adverse events can be identified. The first type includes patients and their families, the second type includes healthcare professionals involved in an adverse event and the third type includes healthcare organisations in which an adverse event occurs. The purpose of this integrative review is to synthesise knowledge, theory and evidence regarding action after adverse events, based on literature published in the last ten years (2009–2018). In the studies critically evaluated ( n = 25), key themes emerged relating to the first, second and third victim elements. The first victim elements comprise attention to revealing an adverse event, communication after an event, first victim support and complete apology. The second victim elements include second victim support types and services, coping strategies, professional changes after adverse events and learning about adverse event phenomena. The third victim elements consist of organisational action after adverse events, strategy, infrastructure and training and open communication about adverse events. There is a lack of comprehensive models for action after adverse events. This requires understanding of the phenomenon along with ambition to manage adverse events as a whole. When an adverse event is identified and a concern expressed, systematic damage preventing and ameliorating actions should be immediately launched. System-wide development is needed.

Keywords: patient safety; adverse events; first victims; second victims; third victims; management (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4717/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4717/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:13:p:4717-:d:378558

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().