What Is Secondary Traumatic Stress?

There is a cost to caring that is rarely talked about openly in professional settings. For the thousands of practitioners across social care, safeguarding, healthcare, policing, and the voluntary sector who spend their working lives alongside trauma, that cost can be profound and lasting.

Secondary traumatic stress is one of the most significant occupational risks facing professionals in these fields. Yet it frequently goes unnamed, unrecognised, and unaddressed until a member of staff has already reached a point of serious difficulty.

This post explains what secondary traumatic stress is, how it differs from related concepts such as burnout and compassion fatigue, what signs to look for, and what organisations can do to meaningfully protect the people who do this vital work.

Secondary traumatic stress, sometimes referred to as vicarious trauma or secondary trauma, is the indirect experience of trauma that can occur as a result of repeated exposure to the traumatic experiences of others. It can be described as the experience of a professional personally developing and reporting their own trauma symptoms as a result of responding to victims of trauma.

Unlike burnout, which develops gradually through exhaustion, disengagement, and a diminishing sense of effectiveness, secondary traumatic stress can develop rapidly and its symptoms closely mirror those of post-traumatic stress disorder. These include intrusive thoughts and images related to the experiences of those the practitioner has worked with, hypervigilance, emotional numbing, difficulty sleeping, avoidance of certain professional situations, and impaired daily functioning.

Critically, secondary traumatic stress does not require a practitioner to have directly experienced a traumatic event themselves. It can arise through listening to a disclosure, reading case files, reviewing distressing material, witnessing the impact of trauma on a child or family, or simply holding emotional space for someone in significant pain. The exposure accumulates over time, often in ways that are difficult to notice until the impact is already considerable.

These three terms are often used interchangeably, but they describe distinct, if related, experiences. Understanding the differences matters because each requires a somewhat different response.

Burnout is a state of chronic exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy that develops gradually through sustained workplace stress. It is not specific to trauma exposure and can affect professionals in any demanding role. It tends to develop slowly and is typically linked to workload, lack of autonomy, and insufficient support rather than the specific content of the work.

Compassion fatigue is an overwhelming mental and physical exhaustion brought on by feeling the pain, stress, and other emotions of the people a practitioner is helping. Named by historian Carla Joinson in the early 1990s and further defined by psychologist Charles Figley, it is closely related to secondary traumatic stress and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Compassion fatigue can be caused by exposure to a single case of trauma or by residual emotion that builds over years of practice.

Secondary traumatic stress is acute and can occur after a single interpersonal interaction, whereas vicarious trauma is a consequence of a longer process. Its onset tends to be faster than burnout and its symptoms more specifically trauma-related.

In practice, many practitioners experience elements of all three simultaneously, which is one reason why these experiences can be so difficult to identify and name.

Professionals in high-risk roles, including police officers, social workers, therapists, psychologists, and safeguarding practitioners, are especially vulnerable to secondary traumatic stress. And yet secondary trauma often goes unnamed.

The evidence from the UK is striking. A survey conducted among child protection police officers found that out of 101 officers interviewed across 12 forces, over 30% reported suffering from secondary traumatic stress. Research has also evidenced the impact of secondary trauma in psychotherapists working with sexual abuse survivors, social workers, child welfare workers, and foster carers.

The risk is not limited to those in obviously frontline roles. Managers who hold complex cases in supervision, professionals who review written accounts of abuse, staff involved in public inquiry work, and those who regularly support colleagues through difficult practice are all exposed to content that can generate secondary traumatic stress over time.

Several factors contribute to secondary traumatic stress being consistently underidentified and under-reported in professional settings.

Many professionals in caring roles have a tendency to respond to their own distress with self-criticism rather than self-compassion. Healthcare and social care staff can encounter empathy distress, burnout, and trauma, often responding with self-criticism rather than self-compassion. There can be a powerful, unspoken cultural expectation that professionals in these fields should be able to manage the demands of the work without it affecting them.

There is also a lack of structural space in many organisations for practitioners to name and process their experiences. Where supervision is primarily focused on case management and workload, there is limited opportunity for the emotional dimensions of the work to be acknowledged.

The symptoms of secondary traumatic stress can also be mistaken for personal failings, general stress, or unrelated mental health difficulties, rather than being understood as a recognised occupational hazard of the work itself.

Protecting staff from secondary traumatic stress is not simply an ethical obligation, though it is that. It is also directly connected to the quality of practice an organisation can sustain. Practitioners who are experiencing secondary traumatic stress are less able to bring the attunement, reflective capacity, and relational skill that safeguarding and care work requires.

Trauma prevention should be viewed as a shared responsibility comparable to physical risk management. Valuing frontline workers means moving beyond rhetoric toward sustained protection.

Name it clearly: The starting point is creating a culture in which secondary traumatic stress is named, normalised, and taken seriously as a recognised occupational risk. This requires leadership at a senior level to model openness about the demands of the work and to communicate clearly that seeking support is expected and encouraged.

Provide structured reflective practice: Regular, facilitated opportunities for staff to process their experiences, whether through group supervision, reflective practice sessions, or peer support structures, are one of the most consistently supported interventions. Effective safeguarding supervision needs to be regular and provide continuity, so that the relationship between supervisor and supervisee develops.

Train supervisors to hold these conversations: Supervisors need to be equipped to recognise the signs of secondary traumatic stress and to create space for practitioners to discuss the emotional impact of their work. This requires specific training and ongoing support for those in supervisory roles, not only an expectation that they will manage these conversations intuitively.

Embed a trauma-informed approach to staff support: A genuinely trauma-informed organisation applies the same principles to its staff as it does to the people it serves. This means creating environments in which staff feel psychologically safe, ensuring that support is proactive rather than reactive, and building compassion-focused approaches into the culture of the organisation rather than treating them as an optional add-on.

Act early: Secondary traumatic stress is far easier to address when it is identified early. Waiting until a member of staff is in crisis before offering support is both ineffective and damaging. Regular check-ins, clear pathways to support, and a culture of openness all contribute to earlier identification.

At SaS Consultancy Group, we support organisations to understand and address the impact of trauma exposure on their workforce. We offer specialist training on secondary traumatic stress and trauma-informed staff support, clinical supervision for practitioners working in demanding roles, reflective practice facilitation, and bespoke consultancy on developing staff support frameworks.

If you would like to discuss how we can support your organisation to better protect the people who do this vital work, we offer a free, no-obligation initial consultation. Get in touch with us at contactus@sasconsultancygroup.co.uk.

< Older Post