Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34133734›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2021

Multilevel governance framework on grievance redressal for patient rights violations in India.

Meena Putturaj, Sara Van Belle, Nora Engel, Bart Criel, Anja Krumeich, Prakash B Nagendrappa, Prashanth N Srinivas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Meena PutturajDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7029-1144
Sara Van BelleDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
Nora EngelDepartment of Health Ethics and Society, Maastricht University, 6200MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bart CrielDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
Anja KrumeichDepartment of Health Ethics and Society, Maastricht University, 6200MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Prakash B NagendrappaCentre for Local Health Traditions and Policy, The University of Trans-disciplinary Health Sciences and Technology, 74/2, Post Attur via Yelahanka, Jarakabande Kaval, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560064, India.
Prashanth N SrinivasHealth Equity Cluster, Institute of Public Health, 3009, II A Main, 17th Cross, KR road, Sidanna Layout, Banashankari stage II, Banashankari, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560070, India.

Funding

DBT-Wellcome Trust India Alliance IA/CPHI/16/1/502648The time and the contributions of PNS for this project is supported by the DBT India/Wellcome Trust Alliance Intermediate Clinical and Public Health Research Fellowship awarded to him [IA/CPHI/16/1/502648].This work is supported by the PhD fellowship offered to Meena Putturaj by the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Directorate-general of Development Cooperation, Belgium.Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The notion of patient rights encompasses the obligations of the state and healthcare providers to respect the dignity, autonomy and equality of care-seeking individuals in healthcare processes. Functional patient grievance redressal systems are key to ensuring that the rights of individuals seeking healthcare are protected. We critically examined the published literature from high-income and upper-middle-income countries to establish an analytical framework on grievance redressal for patient rights violations in health facilities. We then used lawsuits on patient rights violations from the Supreme Court of India to analyse the relevance of the developed framework to the Indian context. With market perspectives pervading the health sector, there is an increasing trend of adopting a consumerist approach to protecting patient rights. In this line, avenues for grievance redressal for patient rights violations are gaining traction. Some of the methods and instruments for patient rights implementation include charters, ombudsmen, tribunals, health professional councils, separating rules for redressal and professional liability in patient rights violations, blame-free reporting systems, direct community monitoring and the court system. The grievance redressal mechanisms for patient rights violations in health facilities showcase multilevel governance arrangements with overlapping decision-making units at the national and subnational levels. The privileged position of medical professionals in multilevel governance arrangements for grievance redressal puts care-seeking individuals at a disadvantaged position during dispute resolution processes. Inclusion of external structures in health services and the healthcare profession and laypersons in the grievance redressal processes is heavily contested. Normatively speaking, a patient grievance redressal system should be accessible, impartial and independent in its function, possess the required competence, have adequate authority, seek continuous quality improvement, offer feedback to the health system and be comprehensive and integrated within the larger healthcare regulatory architecture.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePatient RightsGovernment ProgramsHealth FacilitiesHumansIndiacritical interpretive synthesishealthcare facilitiesMultilevel governancepatient rights implementation

Identifiers

PMID34133734
PMCPMC7611949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.