2000 editorial penned by John Hopkins’ Dr. Albert Wu, proposed the term second victim to bring attention to the need for emotional support for doctors who are involved in a medical error.

‘Providers and institutions must break down this barrier, engaging with patients, families, and advocacy organizations to understand more broadly how everyone -- patients, families, and providers -- is affected by medical harm.’

Astonishingly, what fills the screen instead are images of anguished men and women in white coats or scrubs.
That bewildering result is the apparent effect of a 2000 editorial penned by Johns Hopkins' Dr. Albert Wu, who proposed the term "second victim" in an attempt to bring attention to the need for emotional support for doctors who are involved in a medical error. 




The term has been perpetuated by authors and educators and has even been extended to include healthcare organizations, which are now deemed "third victims."
Clarkson, who co-authored the editorial with three mothers whose children who died after medical errors, said that the term "subtly promotes the belief that patient harm is random, caused by bad luck, and simply not preventable."
"This mindset is incompatible with the safety of patients and the accountability that patients and families expect from healthcare providers," they argued.
Clarkson et al stress that patient communities and their advocates do not question the need to support providers who have been involved in an incident of patient harm, but they ask the healthcare community to pause and reflect on the "second victim" moniker.
Advertisement
And while the "second victim" label may help providers and institutions to cope with an incident of medical harm, "it is a threat to enacting the deep cultural changes needed to achieve a patient-centered environment focused on patient safety," they added.
Advertisement