Gibson Julie, White Kate, Brennan Marnie L
School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 24;20(6):e0326222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326222. eCollection 2025.
Co-ordinated approaches to supporting veterinary practitioners in relation to adverse events are needed to mitigate associated practitioner stress and to prevent future occurrence. The overarching aim of this study was to develop a framework that could be used profession wide within the veterinary sector to support practitioners in relation adverse events (the Stressful Adverse Veterinary Events Support Framework; SAVES Framework). A three-round e-Delphi consensus approach was taken. The study used an a priori determined panel of 50 stakeholders (50% veterinary practitioners - veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses registered in the United Kingdom, 28% individuals employed within UK organisations supporting veterinary practitioners and 22% other veterinary care stakeholders). An a priori determined consensus agreement level of ≥75% was set. Forty-six recommendations entering the first round were formulated by reviewing two sources (i) The human and veterinary healthcare literature pertaining to the provision of support for practitioners who are involved in adverse events, and (ii) Transcripts from a study by the authors that explored veterinary practitioners' experiences of and responses to adverse events. Both sources were used to identify recommendations that may be useful to veterinary practitioners and/or highlighted gaps in the current provision of such support. Recommendations were refined by the primary researcher, through discussion with the core research group and with a wider group of stakeholders via a pretesting and pilot phase before being shared with e-Delphi panellists. Panellists were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with each recommendation (Likert Scale; 1 = Very strongly disagree, 7 = Very strongly agree) and were informed that indications of 6 or 7 would be considered agreement and indications of 1 or 2 would be considered disagreement. In rounds one and two, panel members were asked to provide feedback regarding the recommendations, which was (i) Used to modify the recommendations or to formulate additional recommendations, and (ii) Qualitatively analysed to generate themes of factors that may influence implementation of support for veterinary practitioners in relation to adverse events. Twenty-nine of the 46 initial recommendations (63%) reached consensus. Feasibility, a multifaceted and flexible approach and the influence of human thought and behaviour were identified as factors participants thought would influence the implementation of such support. The recommendations provide the first evidence-based guidance for specifically supporting veterinary practitioners in relation to adverse events; future work should focus on assessing their implementation and impact.
需要采取协调一致的方法来支持兽医从业者应对不良事件,以减轻从业者的相关压力并防止未来再次发生。本研究的总体目标是制定一个框架,该框架可在兽医行业内广泛应用,以支持从业者应对不良事件(应激性兽医不良事件支持框架;SAVES框架)。采用了三轮电子德尔菲共识法。该研究使用了一个预先确定的由50名利益相关者组成的小组(50%为兽医从业者——在英国注册的兽医外科医生和兽医护士,28%为在英国支持兽医从业者的组织中受雇的个人,22%为其他兽医护理利益相关者)。设定了一个预先确定的共识协议水平,即≥75%。通过审查两个来源制定了进入第一轮的46条建议:(i)与为涉及不良事件的从业者提供支持相关的人类和兽医医疗保健文献,以及(ii)作者进行的一项研究的转录本,该研究探讨了兽医从业者对不良事件的经历和反应。这两个来源都用于确定可能对兽医从业者有用的建议和/或突出当前此类支持提供方面的差距。主要研究人员通过与核心研究小组讨论以及在预测试和试点阶段与更广泛的利益相关者小组讨论,对建议进行了完善,然后再与电子德尔菲小组成员分享。要求小组成员指出他们对每条建议的同意程度(李克特量表;1 = 非常强烈不同意,7 = 非常强烈同意),并告知他们6或7的表示将被视为同意,1或2的表示将被视为不同意。在第一轮和第二轮中,要求小组成员就建议提供反馈,这些反馈用于:(i)修改建议或制定其他建议,以及(ii)进行定性分析,以生成可能影响针对兽医从业者不良事件支持实施的因素主题。46条初始建议中有29条(63%)达成了共识。可行性、多方面灵活的方法以及人类思维和行为的影响被确定为参与者认为会影响此类支持实施的因素。这些建议为专门支持兽医从业者应对不良事件提供了首个基于证据的指导;未来的工作应侧重于评估其实施情况和影响。