Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39648503›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Healthcare Professionals' Responses to Complaints: A Qualitative Interview Study With Patients, Carers and Healthcare Professionals Using the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B Model.

Vivi Antonopoulou, Paulina M Schenk, Alison R McKinlay, Paul Chadwick, Carly Meyer, Beckie Gibson, Falko F Sniehotta, Fabiana Lorencatto, Ivo Vlaev, Angel M Chater

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

10 authors.

Vivi AntonopoulouNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1002-4191
Paulina M SchenkNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5239-1977
Alison R McKinlayNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3271-3502
Paul ChadwickNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7101-5993
Carly MeyerNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2268-3055
Beckie GibsonNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Falko F SniehottaNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1738-4269
Fabiana LorencattoNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4418-7957
Ivo VlaevNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Angel M ChaterNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9043-2565

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) [Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences (project reference PR-PRU-1217-20501)].
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient complaints in healthcare settings can provide feedback for monitoring and improving healthcare services. Behavioural responses to complaints (e.g., talking or apologising to a patient) can influence the trajectory of a complaint for instance, whether a complaint is escalated or not. We aimed to explore healthcare professional (HCP) and service user (patient and carer) views on complaints' management and the perceived factors influencing responses to complaints within a healthcare setting by applying behavioural frameworks.

methodA qualitative study was conducted using online or phone-based interviews with eleven HCPs and seven patients or carers. All participants (N = 18) had experience responding to or submitting a formal complaint in secondary and tertiary public healthcare settings in the United Kingdom. The interviews were structured using the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) Model. We analysed the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis. Then, themes were deductively mapped onto the COM-B Model and the more granular Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

resultsTen themes were generated from the analysis representing the influences on HCPs' responses to complaints from HCP and patient/carer perspectives. This included (with TDF/COM-B in brackets): 'Knowledge of complaint procedure' (Knowledge/Capability), 'Training and level of skill in complaints handling' (Skills/Capability), 'Regulation of emotions associated with complaints' (Behavioural regulation/Capability), 'Confidence in handling complaints' (Beliefs about capabilities/Motivation), 'Beliefs about the value of complaints' (Beliefs about consequences/Motivation) and 'Organisational culture regarding complaints' (Social influences/Opportunity). Staff highlighted strong support systems and open discussions as part of positive organisational cultures regarding complaints (Social influences/Opportunity), and a lack of certainty around when to treat issues raised by patients as a formal complaint or informal feedback (Knowledge/Capability).

conclusionOur study findings highlight the importance of strong support systems and organisational openness to patient feedback. These findings can be used to design targeted interventions to support more effective responses and enhance patient-centred approaches to complaints management in healthcare settings. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) was integral in this research. The NIHR PRU in Behavioural and Social Sciences had a dedicated PPI strategy group consisting of six external representatives from the patient and public community (Newcastle University, 2024). These six PPI members actively participated in shaping the research by reviewing and providing feedback on all questionnaire items before the data collection. They were actively involved in supporting participant recruitment by advertising this study on their PPI platform, The Voice

Indexed as

CaregiversHealth PersonnelInterviews as TopicPatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationPatientsProfessional-Patient RelationsUnited Kingdombehavioral researchCOM‐Bhealth servicespatient feedbackpatient safetyTDF

Identifiers

PMID39648503
PMCPMC11625874

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.