Cargando…

Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights

INTRODUCTION: A global rise in patient complaints has been accompanied by growing research to effectively analyse complaints for safer, more patient-centric care. Most patients and families complain to improve the quality of healthcare, yet progress has been complicated by a system primarily designe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Dael, Jackie, Reader, Tom W, Gillespie, Alex, Neves, Ana Luisa, Darzi, Ara, Mayer, Erik K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7398301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32019824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009704
_version_ 1783565936421240832
author van Dael, Jackie
Reader, Tom W
Gillespie, Alex
Neves, Ana Luisa
Darzi, Ara
Mayer, Erik K
author_facet van Dael, Jackie
Reader, Tom W
Gillespie, Alex
Neves, Ana Luisa
Darzi, Ara
Mayer, Erik K
author_sort van Dael, Jackie
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: A global rise in patient complaints has been accompanied by growing research to effectively analyse complaints for safer, more patient-centric care. Most patients and families complain to improve the quality of healthcare, yet progress has been complicated by a system primarily designed for case-by-case complaint handling. AIM: To understand how to effectively integrate patient-centric complaint handling with quality monitoring and improvement. METHOD: Literature screening and patient codesign shaped the review’s aim in the first stage of this three-stage review. Ten sources were searched including academic databases and policy archives. In the second stage, 13 front-line experts were interviewed to develop initial practice-based programme theory. In the third stage, evidence identified in the first stage was appraised based on rigour and relevance, and selected to refine programme theory focusing on what works, why and under what circumstances. RESULTS: A total of 74 academic and 10 policy sources were included. The review identified 12 mechanisms to achieve: patient-centric complaint handling and system-wide quality improvement. The complaint handling pathway includes (1) access of information; (2) collaboration with support and advocacy services; (3) staff attitude and signposting; (4) bespoke responding; and (5) public accountability. The improvement pathway includes (6) a reliable coding taxonomy; (7) standardised training and guidelines; (8) a centralised informatics system; (9) appropriate data sampling; (10) mixed-methods spotlight analysis; (11) board priorities and leadership; and (12) just culture. DISCUSSION: If healthcare settings are better supported to report, analyse and use complaints data in a standardised manner, complaints could impact on care quality in important ways. This review has established a range of evidence-based, short-term recommendations to achieve this.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7398301
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73983012020-08-17 Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights van Dael, Jackie Reader, Tom W Gillespie, Alex Neves, Ana Luisa Darzi, Ara Mayer, Erik K BMJ Qual Saf Systematic Review INTRODUCTION: A global rise in patient complaints has been accompanied by growing research to effectively analyse complaints for safer, more patient-centric care. Most patients and families complain to improve the quality of healthcare, yet progress has been complicated by a system primarily designed for case-by-case complaint handling. AIM: To understand how to effectively integrate patient-centric complaint handling with quality monitoring and improvement. METHOD: Literature screening and patient codesign shaped the review’s aim in the first stage of this three-stage review. Ten sources were searched including academic databases and policy archives. In the second stage, 13 front-line experts were interviewed to develop initial practice-based programme theory. In the third stage, evidence identified in the first stage was appraised based on rigour and relevance, and selected to refine programme theory focusing on what works, why and under what circumstances. RESULTS: A total of 74 academic and 10 policy sources were included. The review identified 12 mechanisms to achieve: patient-centric complaint handling and system-wide quality improvement. The complaint handling pathway includes (1) access of information; (2) collaboration with support and advocacy services; (3) staff attitude and signposting; (4) bespoke responding; and (5) public accountability. The improvement pathway includes (6) a reliable coding taxonomy; (7) standardised training and guidelines; (8) a centralised informatics system; (9) appropriate data sampling; (10) mixed-methods spotlight analysis; (11) board priorities and leadership; and (12) just culture. DISCUSSION: If healthcare settings are better supported to report, analyse and use complaints data in a standardised manner, complaints could impact on care quality in important ways. This review has established a range of evidence-based, short-term recommendations to achieve this. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-08 2020-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7398301/ /pubmed/32019824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009704 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
van Dael, Jackie
Reader, Tom W
Gillespie, Alex
Neves, Ana Luisa
Darzi, Ara
Mayer, Erik K
Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights
title Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights
title_full Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights
title_fullStr Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights
title_full_unstemmed Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights
title_short Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights
title_sort learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7398301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32019824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009704
work_keys_str_mv AT vandaeljackie learningfromcomplaintsinhealthcarearealistreviewofacademicliteraturepolicyevidenceandfrontlineinsights
AT readertomw learningfromcomplaintsinhealthcarearealistreviewofacademicliteraturepolicyevidenceandfrontlineinsights
AT gillespiealex learningfromcomplaintsinhealthcarearealistreviewofacademicliteraturepolicyevidenceandfrontlineinsights
AT nevesanaluisa learningfromcomplaintsinhealthcarearealistreviewofacademicliteraturepolicyevidenceandfrontlineinsights
AT darziara learningfromcomplaintsinhealthcarearealistreviewofacademicliteraturepolicyevidenceandfrontlineinsights
AT mayererikk learningfromcomplaintsinhealthcarearealistreviewofacademicliteraturepolicyevidenceandfrontlineinsights