ArticleBMJ open2019
Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool: reliability testing on a sample of Danish patient compensation claims.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- What do patients value? A retrospective study of compliment letters from a single institution.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Compensation claims for chiropractic in Denmark 2013-2022.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Stage-specific harm in early-stage hospitals in South Korea: a retrospective analysis using the healthcare complaints analysis tool.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Classifying Patient Complaints Using Artificial Intelligence-Powered Large Language Models: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Developing Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool for Health System: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Assessing nourishment problems at a hospital: what can we learn from them?BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient complaints within one Irish teaching hospital.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Using complaints from obstetric care for improving women's birth experiences - a cross sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Article
- Does systematic analysis of patient complaints and compensation cases at hospitals provide useful information to guide quality improvement? Experience from Denmark.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Collecting Patient Feedback as a Means of Monitoring Patient Experience and Hospital Service Quality - Learning from a Government-led Initiative.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Identifying hot spots for harm and blind spots across the care pathway from patient complaints about general practice.Family practice · 2022Article
- An analysis of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022Article
- Quantification of Complaint and Compensation Cases by Introducing a Danish Translated and Cross-Cultural Adapted Edition of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Article
- Restoring the Performance of a Health Care Organization Following the First Wave of COVID-19 by Using Patient Complaint Data.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aim was to test the intra-assessor and interassessor reliability of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for categorising the information in the claim letters in a sample of Danish patient compensation claims. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsWe used a random sample of 140 compensation cases completed by the Danish Patient Compensation Association that were filed in the field of acute medicine at Danish hospitals from 2007 to 2018. Four assessors were trained in using the HCAT manual before assessing the claim letters independently.
main outcome measuresIntra-assessor and interassessor reliability was tested at domain, problem category and subcategory levels of the HCAT. We also investigated the reliability of ratings on the level of harm and of the descriptive details contained in the claim letters.
resultsThe HCAT was reliable for identifying problem categories, with reliability scores ranging from 0.55 to 0.99. Reliability was lower when coding the 'severity' of the problem. Interassessor reliability was generally lower than intra-assessor reliability. The categories of 'quality' and 'safety' were the least reliable of the seven HCAT problem categories. Reliability at the subcategory level was generally satisfactory, with only a few subcategories having poor reliability. Reliability was at least moderate when coding the stage of care, the complainant and the staff group involved. However, the coding of 'level of harm' was found to be unreliable (intrareliability 0.06; inter-reliability 0.29).
conclusionOverall, HCAT was found to be a reliable tool for categorising problem types in patient compensation claims.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.