ArticleBMJ quality & safety2026
What do people do in the aftermath of healthcare-related harm? A qualitative study on experiences and factors influencing decision-making.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo capture experiences of people self-reporting harm and contrast responses and actions between those who do or do not take formal action.
designSemi-structured qualitative interview study.
settingPeople self-reporting harm experienced in the National Health Service (NHS) or their family/friends identified from a general Great British population survey.
participants49 participants.
resultsThere were commonalities in experiences after harm whether formal action (including making a formal complaint or litigation) was taken or not. Many participants reported raising concerns informally with NHS staff, trying to access explanations or support, but were usually unsuccessful. Decision-making on action was complex. There were multiple reasons for not pursuing formal action, including fears of damaging relationships with clinicians, being occupied coping with the consequences of the harm or not wanting to take action against the NHS. NHS advocacy services were not regarded as helpful. Knowledge of how to proceed and feeling entitled to do so, along with proactive social networks, could facilitate action, but often only after people were spurred on by anger and frustration about not receiving an explanation, apology or support for recovery from the NHS. Those from marginalised groups were more likely to feel disempowered to act or be discouraged by family or social contacts, which could lead to self-distancing and reduced trust in services.
conclusionsPeople actively seek resolution and recovery after harm but often face multiple barriers in having their needs for explanations, apologies and support addressed. Open and compassionate engagement, especially with those from more marginalised communities, plus tailored support to address needs, could promote recovery, decrease compounded harm and reduce use of grievance services where other provision may be more helpful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.