Adverse Event Management and Reporting

Establishes comprehensive standards for identifying, documenting, investigating, and learning from adverse events, serious adverse events, and near-miss incidents associated with vascular access devices and infusion therapy.

policies•Feb 2026•Patient Safety

Adverse Event Management and Reporting Policy

1. Policy Statement

It is the policy of this organization that all adverse events, serious adverse events (including sentinel events), and close calls associated with infusion therapy or vascular access devices shall be comprehensively documented within the patient health record, reported through organizational reporting systems, and communicated to appropriate regulatory bodies when required.[1],6 The organization shall maintain a prevention-focused culture grounded in just culture principles,[27],28,47,48 interprofessional investigation, and transparent disclosure to patients, families, and staff at all levels.[3],8

2. Purpose

This policy exists to:

  • Establish robust, standardized systems for identifying, documenting, and tracking adverse events related to infusion therapy and vascular access devices.[6],12
  • Define internal and external reporting pathways and timeframes for all categories of adverse events.[1],2,4,14
  • Mandate formal root cause analysis (RCA) for serious adverse events and sentinel events, with aggregate trend analysis across clusters of events.[17],18,19,20
  • Build and sustain a just culture that encourages clinician reporting without fear of retribution, focusing on system correction rather than individual blame.[27],28,47,48
  • Ensure responsible, timely disclosure of errors to patients and families.[8],54,55
  • Protect the wellbeing of healthcare workers who experience psychological trauma following adverse events (“second victims”).[59],62,63

3. Scope

This policy applies to:

  • All clinical and non-clinical personnel who participate in the delivery, management, or support of infusion therapy and vascular access care.
  • All adverse events, serious adverse events, sentinel events, and near-miss incidents associated with vascular access devices or infusion therapy in any care setting.[6],12,13
  • Organizational leadership, Quality and Patient Safety, Risk Management, Infection Prevention, Clinical Education, and all departments supporting vascular access services.
  • All care settings, including inpatient, ambulatory, home care, and long-term care.

4. Policy Requirements

4.1 Foundational Principles

4.1.1 Comprehensive Documentation. All adverse events, serious adverse events, sentinel events, and close calls shall be documented objectively and factually in the patient’s health record and reported through the organization’s electronic safety reporting system.[1],5,6 Documentation shall be fact-based, avoiding subjective interpretation or speculation. Standardized definitions of serious reportable patient safety incidents—agreed upon through international consensus frameworks—shall guide classification and documentation of all events.[6],12

4.1.2 Patient and Caregiver Education. Clinical staff shall educate patients and caregivers about signs, symptoms, and warning indicators of complications or adverse reactions.[8],9,10,11 Patients shall receive clear instructions on how to contact appropriate clinicians—whether home care nurses, ambulatory staff, or emergency services—when concerning symptoms arise. Patients and caregivers serve as a critical safety layer: evidence consistently demonstrates that engaged patients and their families contribute meaningfully to adverse event prevention and early detection.[10],11,9

4.1.3 Staffing and Safety. Organizations shall maintain adequate staffing levels and appropriate skill mixes to support safe care delivery.[57],58,35 Evidence consistently demonstrates that fewer adverse events occur when organizations maintain appropriate staffing ratios and support ongoing competency development.[57],58

4.2 Internal Reporting Pathways

4.2.1 Adverse events and close calls must be reported through the organization’s electronic safety reporting system within the timeframes established by organizational policy.[1],2,45 Increased reporting volume is an indicator of a healthy safety culture, not an indicator of greater harm—organizations shall track reporting rates as a culture metric and actively work to increase them.[7],34 At minimum, the following stakeholders shall be notified:

  • The patient’s attending provider and essential healthcare team members.
  • Organizational management personnel with relevant oversight responsibility.
  • Risk Management and Quality Improvement departments.
  • Infection Prevention when the event involves or may involve infectious exposure.

4.2.2 Events meeting criteria for sentinel event designation shall be reported to the Chief Nursing Officer, Chief Medical Officer, and organizational executive leadership within twenty-four (24) hours of discovery.[1],50

4.3 External Reporting Requirements

4.3.1 Organizations shall report to applicable external entities in accordance with regulatory and accreditation requirements, including:

  • Regulatory bodies: The FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for device-related events;[14],15,16 applicable international agencies (Health Canada, BfArM, MHRA, Swissmedic, Anvisa) as relevant to the organization’s operating jurisdiction.
  • Advisory organizations: Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) for medication-related events.[4],53
  • Accreditation organizations: The Joint Commission, Joint Commission International, Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program, Det Norske Veritas, Community Health Accreditation Partner, and Accreditation Commission for Health Care, in accordance with institutional policy and accreditation standards.[1],2

4.3.2 When a product defect contributes to an adverse event, the defective device shall be retained and returned to the manufacturer as part of the product incident report to enable thorough failure mode investigation.

4.4 Investigation and Root Cause Analysis

4.4.1 RCA Criteria. The organization shall maintain clear processes for determining which serious adverse events require formal root cause analysis.[17],18,20 At minimum, RCA is required for all sentinel events, events involving death or serious physical harm, and clusters of two or more similar adverse events within a defined timeframe.[19] Root cause analysis has particular relevance in infusion nursing, where device, medication, and process failures frequently intersect.[17]

4.4.2 RCA Methodology. Root cause analysis shall employ a systematic, interprofessional process to determine not only what happened, but why—examining environmental factors, system issues, human factors, equipment performance, and process vulnerabilities at the individual, team, system, and environmental levels.[17],18,20,21,22,25 The RCA shall produce a corrective action plan with defined responsible parties and completion timelines. Contemporary RCA frameworks—such as the IHI RCA²—emphasize moving beyond cause identification to ensure that corrective actions are sufficiently robust to prevent recurrence.[20],22

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of RCA programs is mixed: while RCA is widely mandated, reviews have documented significant variability in the quality of investigations and the degree to which corrective actions translate into sustained safety improvements.[43],44 The organization shall monitor RCA quality and corrective action implementation as distinct performance indicators.

4.4.3 Aggregate Analysis. The organization shall analyze adverse events in aggregate on a regular basis to identify organization-specific trends affecting multiple incidents.[19] Aggregate analysis reveals patterns that single-event investigation may miss and enables systemic improvement interventions.[19],22

4.4.4 Interprofessional Approach. Clinical staff shall actively participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of improvement plans arising from investigations.[23],25 Improvement plans shall address eight domains of patient safety: transformational leadership, patient engagement, human resources management quality, innovation technology, skill competency, education in patient safety, teamwork, and effective communication.[23]

4.5 Building a Culture of Safety

4.5.1 Just Culture. The organization shall maintain a just culture that focuses on correcting systems and processes rather than blaming individual clinicians.[27],28,47,48,29 The just culture framework shall distinguish between: human error (which requires system improvement and supportive coaching), at-risk behavior (which requires coaching to make safer choices), and reckless behavior (which may require disciplinary action).[27],47,48 A validated algorithm (e.g., the Just Culture Algorithm™) shall guide this assessment.[27],47 Evidence demonstrates that just culture principles—when genuinely implemented rather than merely declared as policy—are associated with higher reporting rates and measurable improvements in patient safety outcomes.[30],32,47

4.5.2 Non-Retaliation. No clinician shall face adverse employment action, harassment, or retaliation for reporting a safety concern, error, or near-miss in good faith.[24],49,51 Retaliation against a reporter is itself a policy violation subject to disciplinary action. Research consistently identifies fear of consequences as among the most powerful barriers to clinician reporting.[24],49

4.5.3 Teamwork and Communication. The organization shall advocate for and implement teamwork interventions including: training and education focused on communication and leadership;[31],46 interprofessional rounds and team huddles;[46] structured handoff communication tools and checklists;[31] and sustained management support for safety initiatives.[30],32,33

4.5.4 Proactive Safety Methods. Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) shall be used as a proactive tool to identify potential failure modes before adverse events occur.[37],38,39,40,41,42 HFMEA shall be conducted when new procedures are introduced, significant process changes are implemented, or high-risk processes are redesigned.[39],42 HFMEA has been applied successfully in infusion therapy contexts—including catheter-related bloodstream infection prevention in the ICU[37] and patient safety planning for high-risk infusion scenarios[41]—demonstrating its value as a proactive supplement to reactive RCA methodologies.

4.5.5 Simplified Reporting. The organization shall standardize and simplify adverse event reporting processes to reduce barriers to reporting.[24],34,45,49 Clinical staff shall include patient safety discussions in rounds to identify and report adverse events promptly.[46],36 Education targeting high-reliability principles has been associated with increased adverse event reporting rates among nurses and trainees.[51],36 Near-miss events—in which a potential harm did not reach the patient—shall be treated as equally important reporting opportunities, as they reveal latent system vulnerabilities without the distress of patient harm.[53]

4.6 Transparency and Disclosure

4.6.1 The organization shall maintain a culture of safety transparency that encourages reporting and empowers clinicians to identify and implement appropriate actions to prevent adverse events.[7],34

4.6.2 Error Disclosure. Healthcare teams shall ensure responsible, timely disclosure of errors to patients, caregivers, or surrogates.[8],54,55 Disclosure discussions shall be planned interprofessionally and, where appropriate, patients, caregivers, or surrogates shall be included in adverse event review.[54],55 Patients have a fundamental right to information about what happened to them; disclosure is both an ethical obligation and an evidence-based strategy for rebuilding trust and supporting recovery.[8],3

4.6.3 Communication of Lessons Learned. The organization shall communicate necessary practice changes to staff at all levels in a clear, consistent manner reinforced through multiple channels.[52],33 Lessons learned shall translate into sustained improvements across the organization.[43],44,52

4.7 Second Victim Support

4.7.1 The organization recognizes that clinicians who are involved in adverse patient events may experience significant psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, reduced professional confidence, and post-traumatic stress.[59],61,62 These individuals are referred to as “second victims.” Nurses involved in infusion therapy-related medication errors are particularly susceptible to second victim sequelae given the complexity and high-frequency nature of IV medication administration.[61] A consensus-based definition of “second victim” has been developed to standardize recognition, support planning, and outcome measurement across healthcare systems.[62]

4.7.2 The organization shall implement formal support programs for second victims, including access to peer support networks, professional counseling services, and structured resources for emotional recovery.[59],60,62,63 This support is available without stigma or career penalty.[63] Validated instruments, such as the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), enable organizations to assess the depth of second victim distress and the adequacy of available support resources.[59]

5. Compliance

5.1 Monitoring. Compliance shall be monitored through review of safety event reporting volume and trends (higher volume indicates healthier reporting culture),[7],34,45 RCA completion rates and corrective action implementation timelines,[17],43,44 external regulatory reporting compliance, and annual just culture staff surveys measuring perception of reporting safety.[26],56

5.2 Key Performance Indicators.

  • Safety event reporting rate (target: year-over-year increase indicating cultural improvement).
  • RCA completion rate within defined timelines for qualifying events (target: 100%).
  • External reporting compliance rate for events meeting regulatory thresholds (target: 100%).
  • Second victim support program utilization and satisfaction rates.

5.3 Enforcement. Failure to report a known adverse event or sentinel event is a serious policy violation. Failure of leadership to conduct required RCAs or implement corrective actions shall be escalated to the Chief Nursing Officer and Chief Medical Officer.

6. Exceptions

6.1 Documentation of an adverse event may be briefly deferred (no longer than two hours) when the patient’s clinical condition requires continuous, uninterrupted care. All required documentation shall be completed as soon as the patient is stabilized.

6.2 External reporting timeframes are governed by applicable regulatory requirements, which supersede internal policy. No internal exception shall be granted that delays a legally mandated external report.

  • POL-008: Quality Improvement in Vascular Access
  • POL-003: Evidence-Based Selection and Clinical Monitoring Standards
  • POL-012: Documentation in the Health Record for Vascular Access
  • SOP-VA-080: Vascular Access Root Cause Analysis Procedure
  • SOP-VA-081: HFMEA Procedure for Vascular Access Processes
  • Organizational Safety Event Reporting Policy
  • Organizational Just Culture Policy
  • Organizational Disclosure of Unanticipated Outcomes Policy
  • FDA MedWatch Program
  • FDA MAUDE Database Reporting Requirements
  • ISMP Medication Error Reporting Program
  • Joint Commission Sentinel Event Policy and Procedures
  • NHSN Surveillance Protocols

8. Revision History

VersionDateAuthor(s)Description of Change
1.02026-02-23D. Woo, M. Stern, I.M. WrightInitial policy creation based on IVAPS standards
1.12026-02-23D. Woo, M. Stern, I.M. WrightAdded evidence-based citations
———Scheduled review date: 2027-02-23

9. References

1. The Joint Commission. Sentinel event policy and procedures (January 2020). https://www.jointcommission.org/resources/sentinel-event/sentinel-event-policy-and-procedures/

2. The Joint Commission. Patient safety systems (PS) chapter. 2021 Comprehensive Accreditation Manuals. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/patient-safety-systems-ps-chapter/

3. American Nurses Association. Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements. 2nd ed. American Nurses Association; 2015.

4. Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Report an error. https://www.ismp.org/report-error/merp

5. Bolcato M, Fassina G, Rodriguez D, Russo M, Aprile A. The contribution of legal medicine in clinical risk management. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):85. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3846-7

6. Hegarty J, Flaherty SJ, Saab MM, et al. An international perspective on definitions and terminology used to describe serious reportable patient safety incidents: a systematic review. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e1247-e1254. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000700

7. Källman U, Rusner M, Schwarz A, Nordström S, Isaksson S. Evaluation of the green cross method regarding patient safety culture and incidence reporting. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(1):e18-e25. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000685

8. Harrison R, Walton M, Manias E, et al. The missing evidence: a systematic review of patients’ experiences of adverse events in health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015;27(6):424-442. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzv075

9. Fønhus MS, Dalsbø TK, Johansen M, Fretheim A, Skirbekk H, Flottorp SA. Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2018(9):CD012472. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012472.pub2

10. Merner B, Hill S, Taylor M. “I’m trying to stop things before they happen”: carers’ contributions to patient safety in hospitals. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(10):1508-1518. doi:10.1177/1049732319841021

11. Villar VCFL, Duarte SDCM, Martins M. Patient safety in hospital care: a review of the patient’s perspective. Cad Saude Publica. 2020;36(12):e00223019. doi:10.1590/0102-311X00223019

12. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patient safety network glossary. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/glossary

13. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patient Safety 2015: Final Technical Report. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/issue/patient-safety-2015-final-technical-report

14. US Food and Drug Administration. MedWatch: The FDA safety information and adverse event reporting program. Updated August 1, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch-fda-safety-information-and-adverse-event-reporting-program

15. US Food and Drug Administration. Sentinel initiative: final assessment report. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/media/107850/download

16. US Food and Drug Administration. Sentinel system: five-year strategy 2019–2023. 2019. https://www.fda.gov/media/120333/download

17. Zastrow RL. Root cause analysis in infusion nursing: applying quality improvement tools for adverse events. J Infus Nurs. 2015;38(3):225-231. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000104

18. Brook OR, Kruskal JB, Eisenberg RL, Larson DB. Root cause analysis: learning from adverse safety events. Radiographics. 2015;35(6):1655-1667. doi:10.1148/rg.2015150067

19. Hooker AB, Etman A, Westra M, Van Der Kam WJ. Aggregate analysis of sentinel events as a strategic tool in safety management can contribute to the improvement of healthcare safety. Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(2):110-116. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzy116

20. National Patient Safety Foundation; Institute for Healthcare Improvement. RCA²: Improving Root Cause Analyses and Actions to Prevent Harm. 2015. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/RCA2-Improving-Root-Cause-Analyses-and-Actions-to-Prevent-Harm.aspx

21. Sanchez JA, Lobdell KW, Moffatt-Bruce SD, Fann JI. Investigating the causes of adverse events. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(6):1693-1699. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.04.001

22. Kellogg KM, Hettinger Z, Shah M, et al. Our current approach to root cause analysis: is it contributing to our failure to improve patient safety? BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(5):381-387. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005991

23. Buja A, Damiani G, Manfredi M, et al. Governance for patient safety: a framework of strategy domains for risk management. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(4):e769-e800. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000947

24. Bovis JL, Edwin JP, Bano CP, Tyraskis A, Baskaran D, Karuppaiah K. Barriers to staff reporting adverse incidents in NHS hospitals. Future Healthc J. 2018;5(2):117-120. doi:10.7861/futurehosp.5-2-117

25. Vincent C, Carthey J, Macrae C, Amalberti R. Safety analysis over time: seven major changes to adverse event investigation. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):151. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0695-4

26. Desmedt M, Bergs J, Vertriest S, et al. Systematic psychometric review of self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(3):539-549. doi:10.1111/jan.13464

27. Adelman J. High-reliability healthcare: building safer systems through just culture and technology. J Healthc Manag. 2019;64(3):137-141. doi:10.1097/JHM-D-19-00069

28. Armstrong G. QSEN safety competency: the key ingredient is just culture. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2019;50(10):444-447. doi:10.3928/00220124-20190917-05

29. Desocio PA, Garzon MP, Hicks MR. Building a culture of safety: relearning organizational behavior. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 2019;57(3):12-24. doi:10.1097/AIA.0000000000000242

30. DiCuccio MH. The relationship between patient safety culture and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Patient Saf. 2015;11(3):135-142. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000058

31. Guttman OT, Lazzara EH, Keebler JR, Webster KLW, Gisick LM, Baker AL. Dissecting communication barriers in healthcare: a path to enhancing communication resiliency, reliability, and patient safety. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e1465-e1471. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000541

32. Sim MA, Ti LK, Mujumdar S, et al. Sustaining the gains: a 7-year follow-through of a hospital-wide patient safety improvement project on hospital-wide adverse event outcomes and patient safety culture. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(1):e189-e195. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000725

33. Gibson R, Armstrong A, Till A, McKimm J. Learning from error: leading a culture of safety. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2017;78(7):402-406. doi:10.12968/hmed.2017.78.7.402

34. Adamson L, Beldham-Collins R, Sykes J, Thwaites D. Evaluating incident learning systems and safety culture in two radiation oncology departments. J Med Radiat Sci. 2022;69(2):208-217. doi:10.1002/jmrs.563

35. Alanazi FK, Sim J, Lapkin S. Systematic review: nurses’ safety attitudes and their impact on patient outcomes in acute-care hospitals. Nurs Open. 2022;9(1):30-43. doi:10.1002/nop2.1063

36. Tevis SE, Schmocker RK, Wetterneck TB. Adverse event reporting: harnessing residents to improve patient safety. J Patient Saf. 2020;16(4):294-298. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000333

37. Li X, He M, Wang H. Application of failure mode and effect analysis in managing catheter-related blood stream infection in intensive care unit. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(51):e9339. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000009339

38. Dehnavieh R, Ebrahimipour H, Molavi-Taleghani Y, Vafaee-Najar A, Noori Hekmat S, Esmailzdeh H. Proactive risk assessment of blood transfusion process, in pediatric emergency, using the Health Care Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA). Glob J Health Sci. 2015;7(1):322-331. doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n1p322

39. Faiella G, Parand A, Franklin BD, et al. Expanding healthcare failure mode and effect analysis: a composite proactive risk analysis approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2018;169:117-126. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2017.08.003

40. Liu HC, You XY, Tsung F, Ji P. An improved approach for failure mode and effect analysis involving large group of experts: an application to the healthcare field. Qual Eng. 2018;30(4):762-775. doi:10.1080/08982112.2018.1448089

41. Hagel EA, Snyder K, Janicek K, Bell K. Using a patient safety analysis to guide infusion therapy for patients with COVID-19. J Infus Nurs. 2021;44(5):259-267. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000438

42. Pascarella G, Rossi M, Montella E, et al. Risk analysis in healthcare organizations: methodological framework and critical variables. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:2897-2911. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S309098

43. Martin-Delgado J, Martínez-García A, Aranaz JM, Valencia-Martín JL, Mira JJ. How much of root cause analysis translates into improved patient safety: a systematic review. Med Princ Pract. 2020;29(6):524-531. doi:10.1159/000508677

44. Shah F, Falconer EA, Cimiotti JP. Does root cause analysis improve patient safety? A systematic review at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Qual Manag Health Care. 2022;31(4):231-241. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000344

45. Fujita S, Seto K, Hatakeyama Y, et al. Patient safety management systems and activities related to promoting voluntary in-hospital reporting and mandatory national-level reporting for patient safety issues: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0255329. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255329

46. Musso MW, Vath RJ, Rabalais LS, et al. Improving patient safety communication in residency programs by incorporating patient safety discussions into rounds. Ochsner J. 2017;17(3):273-276. doi:10.1043/1524-5012-17.3.273

47. Paradiso L, Sweeney N. Just culture: it’s more than policy. Nurs Manage. 2019;50(6):38-45. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000558482.07815.ae

48. Barkell NP, Snyder SS. Just culture in healthcare: an integrative review. Nurs Forum. 2021;56(1):103-111. doi:10.1111/nuf.12525

49. Lee W, Kim SY, Lee SI, Lee SG, Kim HC, Kim I. Barriers to reporting of patient safety incidents in tertiary hospitals: a qualitative study of nurses and resident physicians in South Korea. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2018;33(4):1178-1188. doi:10.1002/hpm.2616

50. Bos K, Dongelmans DA, Greuters S, Kamps GJ, van der Laan MJ. The next step in learning from sentinel events in healthcare. BMJ Open Qual. 2020;9(1). doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000739

51. McFarland DM, Doucette JN. Impact of high-reliability education on adverse event reporting by registered nurses. J Nurs Care Qual. 2018;33(3):285-290. doi:10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000291

52. Mira JJ, Lorenzo S, Carrillo I, et al. Lessons learned for reducing the negative impact of adverse events on patients, health professionals and healthcare organizations. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(4):450-460. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzx056

53. Institute for Safe Medication Practices. ISMP survey helps define near miss and close call. Published September 9, 2009. https://www.ismp.org/resources/ismp-survey-helps-define-near-miss-and-close-call

54. Etchegaray JM, Ottosen MJ, Aigbe A, et al. Patients as partners in learning from unexpected events. Health Serv Res. 2016;51:2600-2614. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12593

55. Busch IM, Saxena A, Wu AW. Putting the patient in patient safety investigations: barriers and strategies for involvement. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(5):358-362. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000699

56. Aljaffary A, Al Yaqoub F, Al Madani R, Aldossary H, Alumran A. Patient safety culture in a teaching hospital in eastern province of Saudi Arabia: assessment and opportunities for improvement. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:3783-3795. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S313368

57. Sloane DM, Smith HL, McHugh MD, Aiken LH. Effect of changes in hospital nursing resources on improvements in patient safety and quality of care. Med Care. 2018;56(12):1001-1008. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001002

58. Fagerström L, Kinnunen M, Saarela J. Nursing workload, patient safety incidents and mortality: an observational study from Finland. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016367

59. Burlison JD, Scott SD, Browne EK, Thompson SG, Hoffman JM. The second victim experience and support tool: validation of an organizational resource for assessing second victim effects and the quality of support resources. J Patient Saf. 2017;13(2):93-102. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000129

60. Reiser CF, Schwappach D, Schwendimann R. Supporting health professionals after an adverse event in Swiss hospitals: a cross-sectional study. Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150(25-26). doi:10.4414/smw.2020.20278

61. Treiber LA, Jones JH. Making an infusion error: the second victims of infusion therapy-related medication errors. J Infus Nurs. 2018;41(3):156-163. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000273

62. Vanhaecht K, Seys D, Russotto S, et al. An evidence and consensus-based definition of second victim: a strategic topic in healthcare quality, patient safety, person-centeredness and human resource management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(24). doi:10.3390/ijerph192416869

63. Neft MW, Sekula K, Zoucha R, Glasgow MES, Van Pelt M, Mitchell AM. Support methods for healthcare professionals who are second victims: an integrative review. AANA J. 2022;90(3):189-196.

Teams can standardize this procedure with version control and compliance tracking.

Learn about qpolicy.ai