Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35640642›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2022

Do national policies for complaint handling in English hospitals support quality improvement? Lessons from a case study.

J van Dael, T W Reader, A T Gillespie, L Freise, A Darzi, E K Mayer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2022. 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
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Africa, climate change and the markets.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J van DaelNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9949-5802
T W ReaderDepartment of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, London WC2A 3LJ, UK.
A T GillespieDepartment of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, London WC2A 3LJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0162-1269
L FreiseNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.
A DarziNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.
E K MayerNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.
NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GBLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBOslo Nye Høyskole · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA range of public inquiries in the English National Health Service have indicated repeating failings in complaint handling, and patients are often left dissatisfied. The complex, bureaucratic nature of complaints systems is often cited as an obstacle to meaningful investigation and learning, but a detailed examination of how such bureaucratic rules, regulations, and infrastructure shape complaint handling, and where change is most needed, remains relatively unexplored. We sought to examine how national policies structure local practices of complaint handling, how they are understood by those responsible for enacting them, and if there are any discrepancies between policies-as-intended and their reality in local practice.

designCase study involving staff interviews and documentary analysis.

settingA large acute and multi-site NHS Trust in England.

participantsClinical, managerial, complaints, and patient advocacy staff involved in complaint handling at the participating NHS Trust (

main outcome measuresNot applicable.

resultsFindings illustrate four areas of practice where national policies and regulations can have adverse consequences within local practices, and partly function to undermine an improvement-focused approach to complaints. These include muddled routes for raising formal complaints, investigative procedures structured to scrutinize the 'validity' of complaints, futile data collection systems, and adverse incentives and workarounds resulting from bureaucratic performance targets.

conclusionThis study demonstrates how national policies and regulations for complaint handling can impede, rather than promote, quality improvement in local settings. Accordingly, we propose a number of necessary reforms, including patient involvement in complaints investigations, the establishment of independent investigation bodies, and more meaningful data analysis strategies to uncover and address systemic causes behind recurring complaints.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementState MedicineHospitalsHumansPatient SatisfactionPolicyhealth policypatient complaints, National Health Service, England

Identifiers

PMID35640642
PMCPMC9720291
OpenAlexW4281717126

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.