Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36796865›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2023

Does systematic analysis of patient complaints and compensation cases at hospitals provide useful information to guide quality improvement? Experience from Denmark.

Lars Morsø, Søren Fryd Birkeland, Sisse Walløe, Peter Sigerseth Grøn, Helle Rexbye, Søren Bie Bie Bogh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Lars MorsøOPEN Research Unit, Odense Universitetshospital, Odense, Denmark lars.morsoe@rsyd.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-3084-4186
Søren Fryd BirkelandOPEN Research Unit, Odense Universitetshospital, Odense, Denmark.
Sisse WalløeOPEN Research Unit, Odense Universitetshospital, Odense, Denmark.
Peter Sigerseth GrønClinical Development, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Helle RexbyeClinical Development, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Søren Bie Bie BoghOPEN Research Unit, Odense Universitetshospital, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6207-0501

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient complaints and compensation cases are analysed individually and do not allow for organisational learning. Systematic information on complaint patterns needs evidence-based measures. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) can systematically code and analyse complaints and compensation claims, but whether this information is useful for quality improvement is underexplored. We aim to explore if and how HCAT information is perceived useful to inform healthcare quality gaps.

methodsTo explore the HCAT's usefulness for quality improvement purposes, we used an iterative process. We accessed all complaints relating to a large university hospital. Trained HCAT raters systematically coded all cases, using the Danish version of HCAT.

interventionThe intervention had four phases: (1) coding of cases, (2) education, (3) selection of HCAT analyses for dissemination, (4) 'dashboard' development and delivery of targeted HCAT reports. To study the interventions and phases, we used quantitative and qualitative approaches. The coding patterns were descriptively displayed on department and hospital level. The educational programme was monitored using passing rates, coding reliability checks and rater feedback. Online interviews recorded dissemination feedback. We used a phenomenological approach with thematised quotations from the interviews to analyse the usefulness of the information from cases coded.

resultsWe coded 5217 complaint cases (11 056 complaint points). The average case coding time was 8.5 min (95% CI 8.2 to 8.7). All four raters passed the online test with >80% correct answers. Using rater feedback, we handled 25 cases of doubt. None affected the HCAT structure or categories. Interviews verified the usefulness of analyses after expert group dissemination. Three themes were important: 'overview of complaints', 'learning from complaints' and 'listening to the patients'. Stakeholders perceived the 'dashboard' development as highly relevant.

conclusionThrough the development process with several adjustments, stakeholders found the systematic approach useful for quality improvement. The hospital management evaluated the approach as promising and decided to test the approach in clinical practice.

Indexed as

HospitalsQuality ImprovementDenmarkHealth FacilitiesHumansReproducibility of ResultsHealthcare quality improvementNear missPatient-centred carePatient safetyQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID36796865
PMCPMC9936271

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.