Marta De Vito

The second victim phenomenon (SVP) refers to workers negatively impacted by involvement in unanticipated adverse events or errors. While this phenomenon has been extensively studied in healthcare since its acknowledgment over 20 years ago, its presence and management in other high-risk industries have remained unclear. We conducted a scoping review aiming to map the SVP in non-healthcare industries, as well as to explore the available interventions or support programs addressed to help second victims (SVs). A total of 5818 unique records were identified and, after the screening process, 18 studies from eight sectors were included. All industries acknowledged the existence of the SVP, though many did not use a specific term for defining the SV. Similarities in psychological and emotional consequences were found across sectors. Support strategies varied, with the aviation sector implementing the most comprehensive programs. Self-care and peer support were the most reported interventions, while structured clinical support was not mentioned in any industry. Our review highlighted a lack of standardized terminology and industry-specific, evidence-based support interventions for the SVP outside of healthcare. Healthcare appears to be at the forefront of formally recognizing and addressing the SVP, despite traditionally learning from other high-reliability industries in safety practices. This presents opportunities for reciprocal learning and knowledge transfer between healthcare and other high-risk sectors.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is a vaccine against the COVID-19 infection that was granted a conditional marketing authorization by the European Commission in January 2021. However, following a report from the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of European Medicines Agency, which reported an association with thrombo-embolic events (TEE), in particular disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), many European countries either limited it to individuals older than 55–60 years or suspended its use. We used publicly available data to carry out a quantitative benefit–risk analysis of the vaccine among people under 60 in Italy. Specifically, we used data from PRAC, Eudravigilance and ECDC to estimate the excess number of deaths for TEE, DIC and CVST expected in vaccine users, stratified by age groups. We then used data from the National Institute of Health to calculate age-specific COVID-19 mortality rates in Italy. Preventable deaths were calculated assuming a 72% vaccine efficacy over an eight-month period. Finally, the benefit–risk ratio of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination was calculated as the ratio of preventable COVID-19 deaths to vaccine-related deaths, using Monte-Carlo simulations. We found that among subjects aged 20–29 years the benefit–risk (B-R) ratio was not clearly favorable (0.70; 95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): 0.27–2.11). However, in the other age groups the benefits of vaccination largely exceeded the risks (for age 30–49, B-R ratio: 22.9: 95%UI: 10.1–186.4). For age 50–59, B-R ratio: 1577.1: 95%UI: 1176.9–2121.5). Although many countries have limited the use of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the benefits of using this vaccine clearly outweigh the risks in people older than 30 years. Study limitations included risk of underreporting and that we did not provide age-specific estimates. The use of this vaccine should be a strategic and fundamental part of the immunization campaign considering its safety and efficacy in preventing COVID-19 and its complications.