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.
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.
Authors: Jackie van Dael; Tom W Reader; Alex Gillespie; Ana Luisa Neves; Ara Darzi; Erik K Mayer Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 7.035