Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34233536›Full record

ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2022

Getting the whole story: Integrating patient complaints and staff reports of unsafe care.

Jackie Van Dael, Alex Gillespie, Tom Reader, Katelyn Smalley, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ben Glampson, Daniel Marshall, Erik Mayer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jackie Van DaelResearch Associate, NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, 4615Imperial College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9949-5802
Alex GillespieAssociate Professor, Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, UK.
Tom ReaderAssociate Professor, Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, UK.
Katelyn SmalleyPhD Candidate, NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, 4615Imperial College London, UK.
Dimitri PapadimitriouDeputy Research Informatics Programme Manager, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Ben GlampsonResearch Informatics Programme Manager, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Daniel MarshallComplaints and Service Improvement Manager, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Erik MayerClinical Senior Lecturer, NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, 4615Imperial College London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PSTRC-2016–004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIt is increasingly recognized that patient safety requires heterogeneous insights from a range of stakeholders, yet incident reporting systems in health care still primarily rely on staff perspectives. This paper examines the potential of combining insights from patient complaints and staff incident reports for a more comprehensive understanding of the causes and severity of harm.

methodsUsing five years of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data at a large multi-site hospital in London (in the United Kingdom), this study conducted retrospective patient-level data linkage to identify overlapping reports. Using a combination of quantitative coding and in-depth qualitative analysis, we then compared level of harm reported, identified descriptions of adjacent events missed by the other party and examined combined narratives of mutually identified events.

resultsIncidents where complaints and incident reports overlapped (n = 446, reported in 7.6%' of all complaints and 0.6% of all incident reports) represented a small but critical area of investigation, with significantly higher rates of Serious Incidents and severe harm. Linked complaints described greater harm from safety incidents in 60% of cases, reported many surrounding safety events missed by staff (n = 582), and provided contesting stories of why problems occurred in 46% cases, and complementary accounts in 26% cases.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the value of using patient complaints to supplement, test, and challenge staff reports, including to provide greater insight on the many potential factors that may give rise to unsafe care. Accordingly, we propose that a more holistic analysis of critical safety incidents can be achieved through combining heterogeneous data from different viewpoints, such as through the integration of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyRisk ManagementData CollectionHospitalsHumansRetrospective Studiescomplaintsincident reporting systemspatient involvement

Identifiers

PMID34233536
PMCPMC8772011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.