In the healthcare setting, when an adverse event occurs, attention usually focuses primarily on the harm suffered by the patient. However, scientific literature has been pointing out for years that these situations can also generate a significant impact on the professional involved. In surgery, this reality takes on particular intensity due to the technical complexity of clinical practice, the pressure of decision-making, and the high level of responsibility associated with care outcomes.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2026 analyzed 36 studies on the so-called second victim syndrome in surgeons. The study concludes that the most frequent symptoms after an adverse event are anxiety (56.3%), guilt (53.8%), sleep disturbances (50.5%), and sadness or low mood (48.3%). Among the most common coping strategies are talking to colleagues and relying on family or friends.
Beyond these figures, the value of the study lies in naming a professional experience that is often lived in silence. The authors describe responses that include intrusive thoughts, feelings of isolation, concern for professional reputation, loss of confidence, changes in clinical practice, and even, in some cases, a desire to leave the profession. Manifestations consistent with acute or post-traumatic stress responses, such as hypervigilance, avoidance, and re-experiencing the event, are also reported.
The term “second victim” itself remains a subject of debate, as some authors consider that it may minimize the patient’s experience or pathologize a comprehensible human reaction. Even so, the review uses it because it remains the predominant term in current scientific literature. What is relevant, beyond the label, is recognizing that the emotional impact of the adverse event exists and can affect both the professional’s well-being and the future quality of care.
Another important finding is that not all professionals respond in the same way. Sex, degree of experience, and the severity of the event appear as possible modulating factors of the impact. Furthermore, in the absence of an adequate organizational culture, maladaptive coping strategies may emerge, with repercussions on the professional’s mental health and, potentially, on patient safety.
From an institutional perspective, the review points to a clear conclusion: individual resilience is not enough. Effective interventions require a broader approach, including peer support, mentoring programs, coping and resilience training, and cultural changes that normalize the emotional response to adverse events, reduce stigma, and encourage seeking help.
In this context, addressing the impact of adverse events on the professional does not mean shifting the focus from the patient, but rather understanding the complexity of healthcare harm in greater depth. A mature healthcare culture must be capable of analyzing the case from a clinical, organizational, and human perspective. Only then is it possible to advance towards safer, more transparent, and more sustainable healthcare environments for those who practice healthcare.
👉 View and download the original report
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2026 analyzed 36 studies on the so-called second victim syndrome in surgeons. The study concludes that the most frequent symptoms after an adverse event are anxiety (56.3%), guilt (53.8%), sleep disturbances (50.5%), and sadness or low mood (48.3%). Among the most common coping strategies are talking to colleagues and relying on family or friends.
Beyond these figures, the value of the study lies in naming a professional experience that is often lived in silence. The authors describe responses that include intrusive thoughts, feelings of isolation, concern for professional reputation, loss of confidence, changes in clinical practice, and even, in some cases, a desire to leave the profession. Manifestations consistent with acute or post-traumatic stress responses, such as hypervigilance, avoidance, and re-experiencing the event, are also reported.
The term “second victim” itself remains a subject of debate, as some authors consider that it may minimize the patient’s experience or pathologize a comprehensible human reaction. Even so, the review uses it because it remains the predominant term in current scientific literature. What is relevant, beyond the label, is recognizing that the emotional impact of the adverse event exists and can affect both the professional’s well-being and the future quality of care.
Another important finding is that not all professionals respond in the same way. Sex, degree of experience, and the severity of the event appear as possible modulating factors of the impact. Furthermore, in the absence of an adequate organizational culture, maladaptive coping strategies may emerge, with repercussions on the professional’s mental health and, potentially, on patient safety.
From an institutional perspective, the review points to a clear conclusion: individual resilience is not enough. Effective interventions require a broader approach, including peer support, mentoring programs, coping and resilience training, and cultural changes that normalize the emotional response to adverse events, reduce stigma, and encourage seeking help.
In this context, addressing the impact of adverse events on the professional does not mean shifting the focus from the patient, but rather understanding the complexity of healthcare harm in greater depth. A mature healthcare culture must be capable of analyzing the case from a clinical, organizational, and human perspective. Only then is it possible to advance towards safer, more transparent, and more sustainable healthcare environments for those who practice healthcare.
👉 View and download the original report
At Criteria Médica, we understand that the analysis of adverse events requires a technical, rigorous, and also sensitive approach to the complexity of the healthcare environment. Understanding their clinical, organizational, and professional consequences is part of a comprehensive and well-founded healthcare assessment, in line with the firm’s technical and independent approach.