An exploratory study of complaints handling and nature

Understanding healthcare professionals' responses to patient complaints in secondary and tertiary care in the UK: A systematic review and behavioural analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BACKGROUND

The path of a complaint and patient satisfaction with complaint resolution is often dependent on the responses of healthcare professionals (HCPs). It is therefore important to understand the influences shaping HCP behaviour. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify the key actors, behaviours and factors influencing HCPs' responses to complaints, and (2) apply behavioural science frameworks to classify these influences and provide recommendations for more effective complaints handling behaviours.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of UK published and unpublished (so-called grey literature) studies was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022301980). Five electronic databases [Scopus, MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC)] were searched up to September 2021. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting primary data, conducted in secondary and tertiary care, written in English and published between 2001 and 2021 (studies from primary care, mental health, forensic, paediatric or dental care services were excluded). Extracted data included study characteristics, participant quotations from qualitative studies, results from questionnaire and survey studies, case studies reported in commentaries and descriptions, and summaries of results from reports. Data were synthesized narratively using inductive thematic analysis, followed by deductive mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

RESULTS

In all, 22 articles and three reports met the inclusion criteria. A total of 8 actors, 22 behaviours and 24 influences on behaviour were found. Key factors influencing effective handling of complaints included HCPs' knowledge of procedures, communication skills and training, available time and resources, inherent contradictions within the role, role authority, HCPs' beliefs about their ability to handle complaints, beliefs about the value of complaints, managerial and peer support and organizational culture and emotions. Themes mapped onto nine TDF domains: knowledge, skills, environmental context and resources, social/professional role and identity, social influences, beliefs about capability, intentions and beliefs about consequences and emotions. Recommendations were generated using the Behaviour Change Wheel approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the application of behavioural science, we identified a wide range of individual, social/organizational and environmental influences on complaints handling. Our behavioural analysis informed recommendations for future intervention strategies, with particular emphasis on reframing and building on the positive aspects of complaints as an underutilized source of feedback at an individual and organizational level.

Using Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool to Evaluate Patient Complaints during the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Medical Center in Taiwan

The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient complaints using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 in Taiwan. Additionally, the study examines the distribution and type of patient complaints before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide a better clinical procedure, hospital management and patient relationship. This study utilizes a cross-sectional design. We collected patient complaints from January 2021 to December 2021 at a medical center in Southern Taiwan. Using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT), the patient complaints are classified and coded into three major domains (clinical, management and relationship), and seven problem categories (quality, safety, environment, institutional process, respect and patient rights, listening and communication). We further compared and categorized the complaints based on whether they were COVID-19-related or not and whether it was before or during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the differences in patient complaints. In total, we collected 584 events of patient complaints. Based on the HCAT domains, the complaints about management were the highest, at 52.9%, followed by complaints about relationship, about 37.7%. According to the types of problem, the complaints about the environment were the highest, about 32.5% (190/584), followed by communication at about 29.6% (173/584), and institutional process at about 20.4% (119/584). There were 178 COVID-19-related complaints and they were made more frequently during Q3 and Q4 (from mid-June to December) which was the pandemic period in 2021 in Taiwan. Among the COVID-19-related complaints, the most frequent were in the environment domain with 114 cases (about 65.7% of COVID-19-related complaints). The domains of patient complaints were statistically different between COVID-19-related and non-related (p < 0.001). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of COVID-19-related complaints increased 1.67 times (117/312 vs. 61/272, p < 0.001). Both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, management-related complaints represented the highest domain. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of infectious disease prevention and control policies and actions may have developed some inconvenience and difficulty in seeking medical practice and process. These characteristics (complaints) are more prominent, and timely and patient-first consideration is required immediately to build up better clinical procedures, the healthcare environment and comprehensive communication. Using the HCAT can allow health centers or health practitioners to understand the needs and demands of patients through complaints, provide friendly medical and health services, avoid unequal information transmission, build trust in doctor−patient relationships and improve patients’ safety.

Prioritizing enablers for service quality in healthcare sector - a DEMATEL approach

PURPOSE

The Healthcare sector is one of the important sectors of the Service Industry. It is believed that in this sector, the customer server relationship is very critical, and even the slightest gap in the people quality may have a huge impact on the delivered service quality. Some of these enablers are doctors, nursing staff and support staff. Furthermore, the nonpeople quality enablers such as diagnostic services, facilities, hygiene levels and so on are also likely to impact the delivered service quality. It was also felt that the degree of impact each enabler has on the service quality could vary. Therefore there is a need for structured and deep analysis. The paper attempts to identify, analyze and prioritize the enablers that impact the delivered service quality.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The enablers have been identified through literature review and inputs from experts in the healthcare fraternity. The authors have explored different decision-making tools such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP), analytic network process (ANP), stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis, Hybrid Model and DEMATEL (Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) for the analysis of data in this paper. Based on the strengths of the approach and careful considerations by focus group discussions, DEMATEL was chosen as the best option. It is simple, unique, sparingly used in the healthcare sector, effective in prioritizing and gives meaningful insights on importance, cause and effect factors. DEMATEL approach converts the complex problem with interrelated factors into a clear structure that makes simple interrelationships among factors in the form of cause and effects digraph, and hence, the authors chose to use it. A case study in one of the hospitals has also been conducted to demonstrate the applicability of the developed index. The case study very strongly validates the developed index.

FINDINGS

This research paper has found that there are people quality enablers such as the doctor, nursing staff, support staff and nonpeople quality enablers such as facilities, diagnostic services and hygiene levels maintenance, which impact the delivered service quality. It also concludes that the delivered service quality depends not only on the quality but also on the availability of these enablers. The inputs received from the experts have been run through the DEMATEL methodology and importance computed for each. The top five priority enablers are Quality of Doctor, Availability of Doctor, Quality of Support Staff, Quality of Nursing Staff and Availability of Support Staff.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The weights of the enablers have been obtained using the DEMATEL tool. These weights have been calculated using the inputs from 22 experts, which meets the statistical requirement (Skulmoski, 2007). However, a larger group of experts can be reached, and based on the inputs received from them, the tool can be revalidated for repeatability and reproducibility. Using Fuzzy DEMATEL can also be explored for further analysis.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed framework to assess the service quality level of a healthcare organization is based on a sound approach of DEMATEL. The service index arrived, thereafter, can be used to rate the delivered service quality by any healthcare organization. It can be used to compare the similar type of healthcare organizations across locations. This Index can facilitate improvements in the healthcare organization through internal and external benchmarking. It also helps the organization to know the gaps, understand the root cause, improve upon them and become the best in class. This Index uses the inputs from the end customers to calculate the rating, which makes it more reliable and accurate. The overall scores obtained from the Index can provide the ranking to the healthcare providing organizations and options to customers to choose from best. The service quality index can be used by an organization to continuously monitor their delivered service quality scores and improve them to become the best in class. The research paper highlights the significant role played by the people quality and its strong impact/contribution on the delivered service quality. Hence, it is believed that it will encourage the healthcare organizations to prioritize the improvement and upgrade of the people quality over the nonpeople quality aspect.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Putting people and nonpeople quality enablers in one single model and assigning weights to them using the DEMATEL approach is a new application in healthcare. Developing an Index to measure the delivered service quality in the healthcare sector is also different and new.

A qualitative study of National Health Service (NHS) complaint-responses

Background

Healthcare complaints are grievances that may be indicative of some system failures, individual failings, or a combination of both. Moreover, the experience of making a complaint, including its outcome, often falls short of patient expectations, particularly in relation to the interpersonal conduct of National Health Service (NHS) staff. Over half of unresolved (local) complaints are subsequently upheld by the ombudsman with others potentially resulting in costly litigation.

Method

A nuanced discourse analytical approach to analysing the language choices within complaint-responses could potentially provide greater insight into why many local complaints continue to remain unresolved. Over a period of 1 month we collated a data corpus of written complaints and their responses (n = 60) from an NHS healthcare area in Scotland, United Kingdom (UK) following anonymisation by NHS complaint handling staff. We took a qualitative approach to analysing the data drawing upon Discourse Analysis with this paper reporting on the complaint-responses only (n = 59). We had undertaken a similar review of the initial written complaints and this is reported elsewhere. In this paper we examine how, and to what extent, the complaint-responses fully addressed the complainants’ perceived grievances.

Results

The complaint-responses rarely acknowledged the amount of detail or ‘work’ involved in making the complaint. Complaint-responses constructed complainants’ accounts as subjective by using specific discourse strategies. Further, complaint responses used unintentionality or exceptionality to mitigate sub-standard experiences of care. We also observed the ‘fauxpology’ - a non-apology or false apology (e.g. I am sorry you feel) which imputes the cause of distress to the subjective (and possibly misguided) impressions of the complainant. The complaint-responses thereby evade blame or responsibility for the complainable action by implying that the complainants’ feelings do not align with the facts.

Conclusions

Complainants and complaint-responders work to different frames of reference. Complaint responders need to engage and align with complainants from the outset to ensure more appropriate complaint- responses. Complaint resolution as opposed to complaint handling could be enhanced by the approach of linguistic analysis and reference to the consumer literature’s justice-based approach to post-complaint behaviour.

How do patient feedback systems work in low-income and middle-income countries? Insights from a realist evaluation in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

Well-functioning patient feedback systems can contribute to improved quality of healthcare and systems accountability. We used realist evaluation to examine patient feedback systems at health facilities in Bangladesh, informed by theories of citizenship and principal-agent relationships.

METHODS

We collected and analysed data in two stages, using: document review; secondary analysis of data from publicly available web-portals; in-depth interviews with patients, health workers and managers; non-participant observations of feedback environments; and stakeholder workshops. Stage 1 focused on identifying and articulating the initial programme theory (PT) of patient feedback systems. In stage 2, we iteratively tested and refined this initial theory, through analysing data and grounding emerging findings within substantive theories and empirical literature, to arrive at a refined PT.

RESULTS

Multiple patient feedback systems operate in Bangladesh, essentially comprising stages of collection, analysis and actions on feedback. Key contextual enablers include political commitment to accountability, whereas key constraints include limited patient awareness of feedback channels, lack of guidelines and documented processes, local political dynamics and priorities, institutional hierarchies and accountability relationships. Findings highlight that relational trust may be important for many people to exercise citizenship and providing feedback, and that appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks with clear lines of accountability are critical for ensuring effective patient feedback management within frontline healthcare facilities.

CONCLUSION

Theories of citizenship and principal-agent relationships can help understand how feedback systems work through spotlighting the citizenship identity and agency, shared or competing interests, and information asymmetries. We extend the understanding of these theories by highlighting how patients, health workers and managers act as both principals and agents, and how information asymmetry and possible agency loss can be addressed. We highlight the importance of awareness raising and non-threatening environment to provide feedback, adequate support to staff to document and analyse feedback and timely actions on the information.

How physicians make sense of their experience of being involved in hospital users' complaints and the associated mediation

Background

The growing interest in hospital users’ complaints appears to be consistent with recent changes in health care, which considers the patient’s voice a valuable information source to improve health care. Based on the assumption that the clinicians’ lived experience is an essential element of health care and to neglect it may have serious consequences, this study aimed to explore how physicians experience hospital users’ complaints and the associated mediation process.

Methods

A qualitative analysis of experience narrative interviews. Fourteen physicians concerned by complaints which resulted in a mediation provided a comprehensive narrative of their experience with the complaints center. Data were analyzed with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Interviews were analyzed inductively and iteratively to explore how physicians make sense of their experience.

Results

The analysis of the physicians’ narratives revealed that being the object of a complaint and to enter a process of mediation is a specific experience of which some physicians benefited and others felt psychologically weakened. The causes of the complaints were at times considered by physicians to be related to medical malpractice, but more often to communicational and relational difficulties, unrealistic expectations of patients, physicians’ attitudes, or the lack of a coherent care plan. The analysis of their narratives revealed that physicians showed a need for reconsidering and elaborating on the reason(s) leading to the complaint, and on the expectations patients/relatives may have had towards medicine and health care professionals. This may be interpreted as an attempt to assign their meaning, such meaning having the potential to ease the distress associated with the experience of complaints.

Conclusion

Most physicians appeared more aware of the communicational and relational aspects of care after experiencing a complaint situation; however, prior to the complaint, physicians seem to have underestimate these issues, and when they acknowledge that the complaint originated in psychological aspects of care, they still consider it not relevant, since not related to clinical decision-making and management. Mediation as providing the opportunity to restore the clinical relationship should be encouraged at an institutional level as well as support of health care professionals by means of individual or group supervision.

Patient-Centered Insights: Using Health Care Complaints to Reveal Hot Spots and Blind Spots in Quality and Safety

Policy Points: Health care complaints contain valuable data on quality and safety; however, there is no reliable method of analysis to unlock their potential. We demonstrate a method to analyze health care complaints that provides reliable insights on hot spots (where harm and near misses occur) and blind spots (before admissions, after discharge, systemic and low-level problems, and errors of omission). Systematic analysis of health care complaints can improve quality and safety by providing patient-centered insights that localize issues and shed light on difficult-to-monitor problems.

CONTEXT

The use of health care complaints to improve quality and safety has been limited by a lack of reliable analysis tools and uncertainty about the insights that can be obtained. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool, which we developed, was used to analyze a benchmark national data set, conceptualize a systematic analysis, and identify the added value of complaint data.

METHODS

We analyzed 1,110 health care complaints from across England. "Hot spots" were identified by mapping reported harm and near misses onto stages of care and underlying problems. "Blind spots" concerning difficult-to-monitor aspects of care were analyzed by examining access and discharge problems, systemic problems, and errors of omission.

FINDINGS

The tool showed moderate to excellent reliability. There were 1.87 problems per complaint (32% clinical, 32% relationships, and 34% management). Twenty-three percent of problems entailed major or catastrophic harm, with significant regional variation (17%-31%). Hot spots of serious harm were safety problems during examination, quality problems on the ward, and institutional problems during admission and discharge. Near misses occurred at all stages of care, with patients and family members often being involved in error detection and recovery. Complaints shed light on 3 blind spots: (1) problems arising when entering and exiting the health care system; (2) systemic failures pertaining to multiple distributed and often low-level problems; and (3) errors of omission, especially failure to acknowledge and listen to patients raising concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of health care complaints reveals valuable and uniquely patient-centered insights on quality and safety. Hot spots of harm and near misses provide an alternative data source on adverse events and critical incidents. Analysis of entry-exit, systemic, and omission problems provides insight on blind spots that may otherwise be difficult to monitor. Benchmark data and analysis scripts are downloadable as supplementary files.

Protocol for a mixed-methods realist evaluation of a health service user feedback system in Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

Responsiveness to service users' views is a widely recognised objective of health systems. A key component of responsive health systems is effective interaction between users and service providers. Despite a growing literature on patient feedback from high-income settings, less is known about effectiveness of such systems in low-income and middle-income countries.

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

This paper disseminates the protocol for an 18-month 'RESPOND' project that aims to evaluate the system of collecting and responding to user feedback in Bangladesh. This mixed-method study uses a realist evaluation approach to examine user feedback systems at two Upazila health complexes in Comilla District of Bangladesh, and comprises three steps: (1) initial theory development; (2) theory validation; and (3) theory refinement and development of lessons learnt. The project also uses (1) process evaluation to understand causal mechanisms and contexts of implementation; (2) statistical analysis of patient feedback to clarify the nature of issues reported; (3) social science methods to illuminate feedback processes and user and provider experiences; and (4) health policy and systems research to clarify issues related to integration of feedback systems with quality assurance and human resource management. During data analysis, qualitative and quantitative findings will be integrated throughout to help achieve study objectives. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data will be done using a convergent mixed-methods model, involving continuous triangulation of multiple data sets to facilitate greater understanding of the context of user feedback systems including the links with relevant policies, practices and programmes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approvals were obtained from the University of Leeds and the Bangladesh Medical Research Council. All data collected for this study will be anonymised, and identifying characteristics of respondents will not appear in a final manuscript or reports. The study findings will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Why service users do not complain or have 'voice': a mixed-methods study from Nepal's rural primary health care system

BACKGROUND

Despite abundant literature on the different aspects of health care complaint management systems in high-income countries, little is known about this area in less developed health care systems and most research to date has been conducted in hospital settings. This article seeks to address this gap by reporting on research into complaint systems in primary health care (PHC) settings in Nepal.

METHODS

Using a mixed-methods design, qualitative interviews were conducted with key informants (n = 39) and six community focus groups (n = 56), in the Dang District of Nepal. In addition, interviewer-administered structured questionnaire interviews were held with 400 service users, health facility operation and management committee (HFMC) members and service providers from 22 of the 39 public health facilities. Qualitative data were transcribed, organized and then analyzed using the framework method in QSR NVivo 10, while quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 22.

RESULTS

Despite service users having grievances with the health system, they did not complain frequently: 9% (n = 20) reported ever making complaints about the PHC services. Complaints made were about medicines, health facility opening hours, health facility physical environment, and service providers, and were categorized into environment/equipment, accessibility/availability, level of empathy in the care process and care/safety. Generally, complaints were made verbally to health providers or to HFMC members or female community health volunteers. Use of formal channels such as suggestion boxes or written complaints was almost non-existent. Reasons reported for not complaining included: a lack of complaint channels; lack of knowledge of service entitlements; power asymmetry between service providers and service users; lack of opportunity to choose alternative providers, lack of an established culture of complaining, and a perceived lack of responsiveness to complaints.

CONCLUSION

Very few service users made complaints to PHC services in Nepal. Several contextual factors related to the community and the health system were identified as the reasons for not complaining. We recommend continuing efforts to establish proper complaints mechanisms with an increased emphasis on the existing community health system networks. Furthermore, awareness among service users about service entitlements and complaint mechanisms should be increased.

Patient complaints in healthcare services in Vietnam's health system

Background:

There is growing recognition of patient rights in health sectors around the world. Patients’ right to complain in hospitals, often visible in legislative and regulatory protocols, can be an important information source for service quality improvement and achievement of better health outcomes. However, empirical evidence on complaint processes is scarce, particularly in the developing countries. To contribute in addressing this gap, we investigated patients’ complaint handling processes and the main influences on their implementation in public hospitals in Vietnam.

Methods:

The study was conducted in two provinces of Vietnam. We focused specifically on the implementation of the Law on Complaints and Denunciations and the Ministry of Health regulation on resolving complaints in the health sector. The data were collected using document review and in-depth interviews with key respondents. Framework approach was used for data analysis, guided by a conceptual framework and aided by qualitative data analysis software.

Results:

Five steps of complaint handling were implemented, which varied in practice between the provinces. Four groups of factors influenced the procedures: (1) insufficient investment in complaint handling procedures; (2) limited monitoring of complaint processes; (3) patients’ low awareness of, and perceived lack of power to change, complaint procedures and (4) autonomization pressures on local health facilities. While the existence of complaint handling processes is evident in the health system in Vietnam, their utilization was often limited. Different factors which constrained the implementation and use of complaint regulations included health system–related issues as well as social and cultural influences.

Conclusion:

The study aimed to contribute to improved understanding of complaint handling processes and the key factors influencing these processes in public hospitals in Vietnam. Specific policy implications for improving these processes were proposed, which include improving accountability of service providers and better utilization of information on complaints.

Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a systematic review and coding taxonomy

Background

Patient complaints have been identified as a valuable resource for monitoring and improving patient safety. This article critically reviews the literature on patient complaints, and synthesises the research findings to develop a coding taxonomy for analysing patient complaints.

Methods

The PubMed, Science Direct and Medline databases were systematically investigated to identify patient complaint research studies. Publications were included if they reported primary quantitative data on the content of patient-initiated complaints. Data were extracted and synthesised on (1) basic study characteristics; (2) methodological details; and (3) the issues patients complained about.

Results

59 studies, reporting 88 069 patient complaints, were included. Patient complaint coding methodologies varied considerably (eg, in attributing single or multiple causes to complaints). In total, 113 551 issues were found to underlie the patient complaints. These were analysed using 205 different analytical codes which when combined represented 29 subcategories of complaint issue. The most common issues complained about were ‘treatment’ (15.6%) and ‘communication’ (13.7%). To develop a patient complaint coding taxonomy, the subcategories were thematically grouped into seven categories, and then three conceptually distinct domains. The first domain related to complaints on the safety and quality of clinical care (representing 33.7% of complaint issues), the second to the management of healthcare organisations (35.1%) and the third to problems in healthcare staff–patient relationships (29.1%).

Conclusions

Rigorous analyses of patient complaints will help to identify problems in patient safety. To achieve this, it is necessary to standardise how patient complaints are analysed and interpreted. Through synthesising data from 59 patient complaint studies, we propose a coding taxonomy for supporting future research and practice in the analysis of patient complaint data.