Dealing with clinical complaints

Harnessing the power of language to enhance patient experience of the NHS complaint journey in Northern Ireland: a mixed-methods study

Background

Good communication is consistently recognised as essential for effective complaint handling, while failures in communication correlate with risk of escalation. Nonetheless, communication in National Health Service complaint handling remains underexamined.

Objectives

To examine complainants' lived experience of the complaints journey through (1) micro-analysis of their communication with National Health Service representatives; (2) their self-reported expectations and experiences throughout the complaints journey; to survey patient perceptions of the culture of the National Health Service; to develop 'Real Complaints' - an evidence-based communication training resource.

Design

The project triangulates microlevel conversation analysis and discourse analysis of spoken and written complaints encounters with complainants' appraisals of those encounters in longitudinal case studies. This is underpinned by an audit of patient views of the cultural-institutional context of the National Health Service.

Setting and participants

Data were gathered in the complaints-handling services of two National Health Service trusts and a Patient Advocacy Service in Northern Ireland. Twenty-three complainants consented to longitudinal data collection and 58 to initial encounter recording; 115 members of the Patient Advocacy Service mailing list completed the cultural audit; 3 trust complaint handlers, 1 Patient Advocacy Service complaint handler and 2 trust complaints managers were interviewed.

Data sources

This yielded 1155 minutes of recorded calls, 113 written encounters, 36 diaries, 6 meetings, 23 interviews and 115 cultural audit responses collected over a period of 24 months.

Results

Our analysis illuminates the dual nature of complaints: as personal expressions of dissatisfaction and as systemic critiques. The complaint experience is a dynamic journey with evolving narratives reflecting complainants' shifting perceptions, expectations and experiences of the 'system', both moment-by-moment and encounter-by-encounter in the overall journey. Key interpersonal priorities for complainants significantly affected complaint outcomes, most important of which was the need to be respected as a 'reasonable complainant'. Also key is the conversation analytic concept of affiliation, which involves taking a stance towards the event(s) being described that matches the complainant's stance. Use of affiliation by call handlers supported effective and efficient person-centred complaints handling, while absence of affiliation typically led to escalation of the scope, scale and emotional intensity of the complaint, sometimes to the point of an expressed intention to litigate (particularly in the case of written responses). Viewed holistically, successful complaints communication requires person-centredness, and affiliative interactions framed by shared expectations. These findings were applied in the development of Real Complaints Training and Guidance for spoken and written complaints communication.

Limitations

The COVID pandemic significantly constrained trust participation, particularly the participation of front-line clinical staff, and one trust introduced 'telephone resolution' to which we were not given access. Additionally, calls viewed by staff as 'challenging' and ethnic minority communities are both under-represented in the final data set.

Conclusions

Addressing the complainant's desire to be perceived as reasonable was revealed as crucial for fostering a more person-centred approach to handling complaints and addressing the gap between expectations and experience. This finding holds particular significance for recommendations, guidance and training relating to both spoken and written communication.

Future work

Direct extensions of the project include the piloting and evaluation of Real Complaints Training and further primary research involving communication between complainants and front-line service/clinical staff and complaint handling by ombudsman complaints investigators. An emerging question relates to social exclusion and access to complaints procedures.

Study registration

This study is registered as Research Registry: researchregistry5049.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127367) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research Vol. 12, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A multi-perspective exploration of the understanding of patient complaints and their potential for patient safety improvement in general practice

Background

Healthcare complaints are an under utilised source of information for safety improvement, particularly in general practice settings. Within general practice in Ireland, complaints management is dependent on individual practice policies, with little standardisation nationally, impeding their use for safety improvement. There is a need to understand factors that contribute to unlocking the potential of complaints for safety improvement in general practice in Ireland and internationally.

Objectives

To explore perceptions of healthcare complaints of general practitioners, practice nurses and managers, medico-legal professionals, and policymakers.

Methods

Participants were recruited using convenience sampling. Interviews were conducted from November 2019–May 2020, based on a semi-structured interview guide. Data were then transcribed and analysed using content analysis. An iterative process was applied to identify emerging themes from the interviews.

Results

A total of 29 participants (19 female, 10 male) were interviewed. Three themes emerged from the analysis, ‘why patients submit complaints’, ‘management of complaints’, and ‘impact of complaints’. Subthemes included ‘barriers and facilitators to complaining’, ‘practice processes’ for complaints management, and ‘impacts on staff’ of complaints, among others.

Conclusion

There is a lot to be learned about how individuals experience complaints, however, this study adds to existing knowledge. The findings from this study can be used to tackle challenges facing complaints management in general practice, including the barriers to complaining for patients and the negative impacts of complaints on the staff, and can also help to build on positive aspects of complaints such as the desire for systemic change among interested parties.

A systematic review of patient complaints about general practice

BACKGROUND

Health care complaints are an underutilized resource for quality and safety improvement. Most research on health care complaints is focused on secondary care. However, there is also a need to consider patient safety in general practice, and complaints could inform quality and safety improvement.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to synthesize the extant research on complaints in general practice.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched: Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Academic Search Complete. Peer-reviewed studies describing the content, impact of and motivation for complaints were included and data extracted. Framework synthesis was conducted using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) as an organizing framework. Methodological quality was appraised using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD).

RESULTS

The search identified 2960 records, with 21 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was found to be variable. The contents of complaints were classified using the HCAT, with 126 complaints (54%) classified in the Clinical domain, 55 (23%) classified as Management and 54 (23%) classified as Relationships. Motivations identified for making complaints included quality improvement for other patients and monetary compensation. Complaints had both positive and negative impacts on individuals and systems involved.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted the high proportion of clinical complaints in general practice compared to secondary care, patients' motivations for making complaints and the positive and negative impacts that complaints can have on health care systems. Future research focused on the reliable coding of complaints and their use to improve quality and safety in general practice is required.

Supporting staff to respond effectively to informal complaints: findings from an action research study

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

To understand how nurses and midwives manage informal complaints at ward level.

BACKGROUND

The provision of high quality, compassionate clinical nursing and midwifery is a global priority. Complaints management systems have been established within the National Health Service in the UK to improve patient experience yet little is known about effective responses to informal complaints in clinical practice by nurses and midwives.

DESIGN

Collaborative action research.

METHODS

Four phases of data collection and analysis relating to primarily one National Health Service trust during 2011-2014 including: scoping of complaints data, interviews with five service users and six key stakeholders and eight reflective discussion groups with six midwives over a period of nine months, two sessions of communications training with separate groups of midwives and one focus group with four nurses in the collaborating trust.

RESULTS

Three key themes emerged from these data: multiple and domino complaints; ward staff need support; and unclear complaints systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research does not capture the complexities of complaints and the nursing and midwifery response to informal complaints.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Robust systems are required to support clinical staff to improve their response to informal complaints and thereby improve the patient experience.

Gatekeeping access to the midwifery unit: Managing complaints by bending the rules

While poor communication between service users and front-line staff causes many service user complaints in the British National Health Service, staff rarely reflect on the causes of these complaints. We discuss findings from an action research project with midwives which suggest that the midwives struggled to fully understand complaints from women, their partners and families particularly about restricted visiting and the locked door to the midwifery unit. They responded to individual requests to visit out of hours while maintaining the general policy of restricted visiting. In this way, the door was a gatekeeping device which allowed access to the unit within certain rules. The locked door remained a barrier to women and their families and as a result was a common source of informal complaints. We argue that the locked door and restricted visiting to the midwifery unit were forms of gatekeeping and boundary making by midwives which reveals a tension between their espoused woman-centred care and contemporary midwifery practice which is increasingly constrained by institutional values.

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.

Risk, governance and the experience of care

Drawing on perspectives from the governmentality literature and the sociology of risk, this article explores the strategies, tools and mechanisms for managing risk in acute hospital trusts in the United Kingdom. The article uses qualitative material from an ethnographic study of four acute hospital trusts undertaken between 2008 and 2010 focusing on the provision of dignified care for older people. Extracts from ethnographic material show how the organisational mechanisms that seek to manage risk shape the ways in which staff interact with and care for patients. The article bridges the gap between the sociological analysis of policy priorities, management strategy and the organisational cultures of the NHS, and the everyday interactions of care provision. In bringing together this ethnographic material with sociological debates on the regulation of healthcare, the article highlights the specific ways in which forms of governance shape how staff care for their patients challenging the possibility of providing dignified care for older people.

How do hospitals handle patients complaints? An overview from the Paris area

BACKGROUND

The incidence of complaints about health care has been rising. Reviewing the reasons why patients complain and how hospital staff respond to them can participate in an evaluation of quality in health care. There is a dearth of published information on complaints handling.

METHODS

In order to analyse complaints handling, we surveyed complaints referred to hospital managers in two French hospitals over one year: characteristics of complaints and characteristics of responses made to complainants. We used a scale for 10 criteria evaluating the responses to complaints.

RESULTS

A total of 115 complaints were analysed. Complaints mainly concerned the communication, the quality of medical care, waiting delays, and inadequate bills. Consequences of dissatisfaction included loss of confidence and refusal to pay the bill. Complainants wanted an explanation, their bill to be reduced, or something to change after the complaint. Most complainants wrote to the hospital manager. Hospital managers answered, using medical information as a basis for their responses. Median response time was 23 days. Interobserver agreement on evaluation criteria was almost perfect, substantial or moderate for 8 of 10 criteria. Major weaknesses of the responses were their lack of comprehensiveness (52%), the absence of intention to investigate (50%) and to act (77%), and of practical support (51%). The response of hospital managers misinterpreted the medical information given by the physician concerned in 5 (11%) of 45 cases.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that quality of complaints handling should be improved, possibly through the systematic reception of complainants by a physician not involved in the patient's care.

Factors associated with Medicare beneficiary complaints about quality of care

This article examines the number and types of formal complaints about quality of care that were made by Medicare beneficiaries and submitted to the California Peer Review Organization (PRO) during the period July 1, 1995-December 30, 1996. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the complaints in terms of sociodemographic factors, enabling factors (income and health maintenance organization [HMO] membership), diagnoses, and primary service providers. The complaint rate was found to be very low, and only 13% of complaints were confirmed by the PRO. HMO members and members receiving physician care and outpatient/emergency room care were more likely to complain about denials of or delays in services or the failure to be referred to specialists than were members in fee-for-service plans and those receiving other types of provider care. Complaints about poor nursing care were associated with receiving skilled nursing/rehabilitation care. Complaints about care that resulted in injury were associated with the denial of care, failure to be referred to a specialist, poor medical care, and poor communications. Complaints about care that led to disability were associated with medical errors, whereas those that led to death were associated with misdiagnosis and premature hospital discharge. It would be valuable for PROs to focus their complaint review efforts on common types of complaints in different settings. A review of PRO procedures should be undertaken to understand why so few complaints are submitted and confirmed.