Anzeige
Erschienen in:
20.07.2021 | Original Article
Second Victim Experience and Perception Discordance of the Colonoscopic Perforation
Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Ausgabe 7/2022
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Background
Perforation is the most serious adverse event of colonoscopy, but rarely considered from the view of colonoscopists’ second victim experience and perception discordance between colonoscopists and patients.
Aims
We aimed to evaluate colonoscopists’ second victim experience and the perception discordance between colonoscopists and patients for the colonoscopic perforation.
Methods
A survey for colonoscopic perforation was performed for the colonoscopists and outpatients who visited the university hospital between February 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. The questionnaire included questions regarding colonoscopists’ satisfaction for the intervention strategies offered to patients and patient–colonoscopist perception on colonoscopic perforation. A modified Korean version of the “Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (K-SVEST)” was used to assess the second victim experiences and supportive resources for the colonoscopists.
Results
Survey results from 160 colonoscopists and 165 patients were analyzed. The colonoscopists’ satisfaction scores were higher for strategies related to sufficient explanation, empathy, courteous listening, and monetary compensation. The scores of the K-SVEST for the second victim experience were highest in psychological distress, followed by loss of professional self-efficacy, colleague support, physical distress, non-work-related support, institutional support, and turnover intentions/absenteeism. Significant patient–colonoscopist discordance was noted for the same colonoscopic perforation scenario on the judgment of medical error, health professionals’ apology, monetary compensation, and criminal penalties for the colonoscopists.
Conclusions
Colonoscopists can suffer emotionally and physically from the second victim experience after colonoscopic perforation. In addition, the significant patient–colonoscopist discordance should be considered to make a better communication for the colonoscopic perforation.