# Defining the Violence Victim Phenomenon: A Qualitative Study Among Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Specialists

## TL;DR

This study introduces the 'Violence Victim Phenomenon' to describe the psychological trauma experienced by healthcare workers due to workplace violence.

## Contribution

The paper defines a new concept, the 'Violence Victim Phenomenon,' to describe trauma from intentional aggression in healthcare.

## Key findings

- Six core dimensions of VVP were identified, including vulnerability amplifiers and institutional abandonment.
- Participants described trauma comparable to the 'Second Victim Phenomenon' but rooted in intentional harm.
- VVP is characterized by a loss of professional dignity and lack of institutional support.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Healthcare workplace violence has evolved into a global crisis, significantly impacting high-risk specialties. While the “Second Victim Phenomenon” (SVP) is well-established for trauma following medical errors, the specific psychological trauma resulting from intentional external aggression remains conceptually under-defined. This study aims to introduce and define the “Violence Victim Phenomenon” (VVP) by exploring the lived experiences of anesthesiology and intensive care specialists, providing a theoretical framework for this distinct clinical state. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with ten anesthesiology and intensive care specialists using a semi-structured focus group discussion. The session was subjected to thematic analysis using MAXQDA software. The analysis focused on the nature of violence encountered, psychological and professional impacts, and the role of institutional support systems. Results: The thematic analysis identified six core dimensions of VVP: forms and trajectories of violence, vulnerability amplifiers, psychological and occupational sequelae, coping and containment strategies, expectations of institutional support, and pandemic-specific intensifiers. Participants described a trauma profile comparable to SVP in severity but distinct in its etiology, rooted in intentional harm and “institutional abandonment.” VVP is characterized by a profound sense of vulnerability, loss of professional dignity, and a perceived lack of legal and administrative protection. Conclusions: VVP represents a critical gap in current academic literature. Defining VVP allows for a more nuanced understanding of the trauma healthcare workers face due to intentional aggression. To mitigate VVP, healthcare institutions must move beyond basic security measures toward a “just culture” that provides structured psychological, legal, and managerial support, recognizing clinicians as victims of systemic failure.