Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24876289›Full record

SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2014

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

Tom W Reader, Alex Gillespie, Jane Roberts

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 161 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
161citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

161 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Measurement and monitoring patient safety in prehospital care: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Patient and public involvement in medical performance processes: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Characterising patient complaints in out-of-hours general practice: a retrospective cohort study in Ireland.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Impact of Age and Gender on Patient Grievances in a Dental Academic Setting: A 6-Year Analysis.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Between Ideal and Actual Care: Patients' and Family Carers' Experiences of Cancer Care Relationships.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026
    Article

101 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tom W ReaderDepartment of Social Psychology, London School of Economics, London, UK.
Alex GillespieDepartment of Social Psychology, London School of Economics, London, UK.
Jane RobertsDepartment of Social Psychology, London School of Economics, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient 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.

methodsThe 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.

results59 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%).

conclusionsRigorous 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.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyPatient SatisfactionProfessional-Patient RelationsClassificationData CollectionHumansTotal Quality ManagementHealthcare quality improvementHuman factorsPatient-centred carePatient satisfactionQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID24876289
PMCPMC4112446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.