Next Article in Journal
Review of Policy Framework for the Development of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage in China
Next Article in Special Issue
First Results of Peer Training for Medical Staff—Psychosocial Support through Peer Support in Health Care
Previous Article in Journal
Disinformation: A Bibliometric Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Calling for Help—Peer-Based Psychosocial Support for Medical Staff by Telephone—A Best Practice Example from Germany
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Second Victim Support at the Core of Severe Adverse Event Investigation

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16850; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416850
by Angel Cobos-Vargas 1,2, Pastora Pérez-Pérez 3, María Núñez-Núñez 4,5,6,*, Eloísa Casado-Fernández 2,7 and Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas 2,4,6,8
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16850; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416850
Submission received: 8 November 2022 / Revised: 11 December 2022 / Accepted: 13 December 2022 / Published: 15 December 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well written article to address the impacts of SAE to HCW. Important topic. 

Can add some content to describe: 1. The symptoms and reflection of HCW suffered from SAE. 2. How about multiple involvement from more than one HCW in a SAE? 3. Details about the contents of supports, according to its level.

 

Author Response

See uploaded word file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this suggestive paper. In my opinion, I believe that the document consistently and accurately reflects the stated objective of 'share the second victim support strategy integrated into a sentinel event operational' (75-76). The flowchart of the process, clearly shows in the tables (table 1 and table 2) the nature of the adverse events and the distribution of the 'second victims'. In my opinión, is very clear and a good point of the paper.

On the other hand, I would have liked to have had more information regarding the qualitative aspect. In other words, I find that paper could improve with a more extensive description of the bases of the 'qualitative approach' (what is missing).For instance: what protocol has been followed? What type of analysis has been developed? And, similar to the quantitative results, I believe that this analysis deserves to be reflected in a more systematic way.

In any case, I think it is a relevant paper of hight interest to the healthcare community. 

Author Response

See uploaded word file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop