A systematic review of patient complaints about general practice

Beyond empathy training for practitioners: Cultivating empathic healthcare systems and leadership

Empathic care benefits patients and practitioners, and empathy training for practitioners can enhance empathy. However, practitioners do not operate in a vacuum. For empathy to thrive, healthcare consultations must be situated in a nurturing milieu, guided by empathic, compassionate leaders. Empathy will be suppressed, or even reversed if practitioners are burned out and working in an unpleasant, under-resourced environment with increasingly poorly served and dissatisfied patients. Efforts to enhance empathy must therefore go beyond training practitioners to address system-level factors that foster empathy. These include patient education, cultivating empathic leadership, customer service training for reception staff, valuing cleaning and all ancillary staff, creating healing spaces, and using appropriate, efficiency saving technology to reduce the administrative burden on healthcare practitioners. We divide these elements into environmental factors, organisational factors, job factors, and individual characteristics.

Clinical conversations in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain in vulnerable patient populations: a meta-ethnography

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-ethnography was to synthesize the research exploring patient/provider perceptions of clinical conversations (CC) centered on chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) in vulnerable adult populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search for qualitative/mixed method studies in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Sociology Database in ProQuest, and Web of Science used PRIMSA-P guidelines. Data synthesis used eMERGe guidelines; findings were presented in nested hierarchal theoretical frameworks.

RESULTS

The included studies explored patients' (n = 18), providers' (n = 2), or patients' and providers' perspectives (n = 5) with diversity in patient participants represented (n = 415): immigrants, indigenous people, women, and veterans. Themes for each level of the nested hierarchal models revealed greater complexity in patients' perceptions about the CC in CMP relative to clinicians' perceptions. A unique finding was sociopolitical/historical factors can influence CC for vulnerable populations.

CONCLUSION

The combined nested hierarchical models provided insight into the need for clinicians to be aware of the broader array of influences on the CC. Key themes indicated that improving continuity of care and cultural training are needed to improve the CC. Additionally, due to patients' perception of how healthcare systems' policies influence the CC, patients should be consulted to guide the change needed to improve inequitable outcomes.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONHealthcare providers wishing to improve the clinical conversation in chronic musculoskeletal pain can more broadly explore potential factors influencing patients' experiences and perceptions.Screening during the clinical conversation can include assessing for sociopolitical and historical influences on patients' experiences with chronic musculoskeletal pain.Healthcare providers can explore how to minimize disjointed care in an effort to improve the clinical conversation and outcomes in chronic musculoskeletal pain.Healthcare providers and patients can work together to improve inequitable outcomes for vulnerable adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.This may include cultural training for healthcare providers that is informed by patients.

Patients' negative experiences with health care settings brought to light by formal complaints: A qualitative metasynthesis

INTRODUCTION

Narratives of negative patient experiences expressed in complaints can help health care professionals reflect on their practices.

AIMS

To synthesise evidence from qualitative primary studies on patients' negative experiences with different health care settings and to obtain a detailed picture of what patients find problematic while receiving health care.

DESIGN

Metasynthesis inspired by Sandelowski and Barroso.

METHODS

A protocol was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), PsycInfo (Ovid) and Scopus, on 20.04.2021. Backward and forward citations of included reports were searched for relevant studies and the search was completed in March 2022. Two researchers independently screened and appraised the included reports. A metasynthesis using reflexive thematic analysis and a metasummary were conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-four reports were included, and four main themes were extracted from the metasynthesis: (1) problems with access to health care services; (2) failure to acquire information about diagnosis, treatment and the expected patient role; (3) experiencing inappropriate care and bad treatment; (4) problems with trusting health care service providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative patient experiences impact patients' physical and psychological health, leading to suffering and hampering patients from involving themselves in their health care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Narratives of negative patient experiences aggregated from the findings provide knowledge about what patients need and expect from health care providers. These narratives can help health care professionals reflect on the way they interact with patients and improve their practice. Health care organisations need to prioritise patient participation.

REPORTING METHOD

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Findings were presented and discussed in a meeting with a reference group representing patients, health care professionals and the public.

The patient's "story": an examination of patient-reported safety incidents in general practice

BACKGROUND

Patient safety incidents (PSIs) are typically studied through engagement with healthcare providers, without input from patients despite their privileged viewpoint of care experiences.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the potential of the patient viewpoint as a lens for future safety improvement initiatives, by: (i) collecting and analysing patients' accounts of PSIs; and (ii) comparing patient and clinician perceptions of PSIs.

METHODS

Firstly, Critical Incident Technique (CIT) interviews were used to obtain rich descriptions of PSIs, which were then condensed into patient stories. Deductive content analysis was used to code the safety deficiencies described in patient stories using patient-derived safety categories. Secondly, General Practitioners (GPs) and patients individually rated the perceived severity and likelihood of each story.

RESULTS

A total of 32 eligible patient stories were obtained from 25 interviews. Stories commonly described deficiencies related to communication, staff performance, and compassion/dignity/respect. There were significant differences in GP (n = 14) and patient (n = 11) severity and likelihood ratings. GPs were significantly more likely to consider stories to be a lower severity, and occurring with a lower frequency than patients.

CONCLUSION

Elicitation of the patient perspective using the CIT allowed for the rich description of safety deficiencies that occur in general practice. Given that patients bring a unique and important viewpoint on safety, there is a need to make greater efforts to include the patient perspective of safety in healthcare.

Identifying hot spots for harm and blind spots across the care pathway from patient complaints about general practice

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare complaints are underutilized for quality improvement in general practice. Systematic analysis of complaints has identified hot spots (areas across the care pathway where issues occur frequently) and blind spots (areas across the care pathway that cannot be observed by staff) in secondary care. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) has been adapted to the HCAT(GP).

AIMS

This study aimed to: (i) assess whether the HCAT(GP) can systematically analyze complaints about general practice; and (ii) identify hot spots and blind spots in general practice.

METHODS

GP complaints were sampled. Complaints were coded with the HCAT(GP), classified by HCAT(GP) category (e.g. Safety, Environment, Listening), stage of care (e.g. accessing care, referral/follow-up), severity (e.g. low, medium, high), and harm (e.g. none, major). Descriptive statistics were run to identify discrete issues. A chi-square test of independence identified hot spots, and logistic regression was used for blind spots.

RESULTS

A total of 230 complaints, encompassing 432 issues (i.e. unique problems within complaints), were categorized. Relationship issues (e.g. problems with listening, communication, and patient rights) emerged most frequently (n = 174, 40%). Hot spots were identified in the consultation and the referral/follow-up stages (χ 2(5, n = 432) = 17.931, P < 0.05). A blind spot for multiple issues was identified, with the likelihood of harm increasing with number of issues (odds ratio = 2.02, confidence interval = 1.27-3.23, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Complaints are valuable data for improving general practice. This study demonstrated that the HCAT(GP) can support the systematic analysis of general practice complaints, and identify hot spots and blind spots in care.

The Effect of Physician Immediacy on Patient Liking for Physician, Motivation, and Recall

Guided by the fostering relationships function of patient-centered communication (PCC), the present study utilized a 2 (high/low nonverbal immediacy) x 2 (high/low verbal immediacy) between-subjects experimental design to determine whether physician verbal and nonverbal immediacy influenced participant liking for physician, motivation to process a health message, and recall of the health message. An actor physician delivered a 3-4 minute video-recorded message, diagnosing U.S. adult participants, serving as analogue patients, with a health issue. The results indicated main effects for physician verbal immediacy and nonverbal immediacy on participant liking for physician and motivation such that participants had greater liking for the physician and motivation to do what the physician requested when the physician demonstrated greater verbal and nonverbal immediacy. However, physician verbal and nonverbal immediacy did not influence participants' recall. Physicians should consider displaying verbal and nonverbal immediacy to create a positive impression among patients, and to motivate patients to take steps to improve their health.

Patients' perception of safety climate in Irish general practice: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Although patients have the potential to provide important information on patient safety, considerably fewer patient-report measures of safety climate (SC) have been applied in the primary care setting as compared to secondary care. Our aim was to examine the application of a patient-report measure of safety climate in an Irish population to understand patient perceptions of safety in general practice and identify potential areas for improvement. Specifically, our research questions were: 1. What are patients' perceptions of SC in Irish general practice? 2. Do patient risk factors impact perceptions of SC? 3. Do patient responses to an open-ended question about safety enhance our understanding of patient safety beyond that obtained from a quantitative measure of SC?

METHODS

The Patient Perspective of Safety in General Practice (PPS-GP) survey was distributed to primary care patients in Ireland. The survey consisted of both Likert-response items, and free-text entry questions in relation to the safety of care. A series of five separate hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relationship between a range of patient-related variables and each of the survey subscales. A deductive content analysis approach was used to code the free-text responses.

RESULTS

A total of 584 completed online and paper surveys were received. Respondents generally had positive perceptions of safety across all five SC subscales of the PPS-GP. Regarding patient risk factors, younger age and being of non-Irish nationality were consistently associated with more negative SC perceptions. Analysis of the free-text responses revealed considerably poorer patient perceptions (n = 85, 65.4%) of the safety experience in primary care.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that despite being under-utilised, patients' perceptions are a valuable source of information for measuring SC, with promising implications for safety improvement in general practice. Further consideration should be given to how best to utilise this data in order to improve safety in primary care.

The adaptation of the 'Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool' for general practice

BACKGROUND

Patient complaints about care in general practice are underutilized as a source of safety improvement data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to adapt a secondary care complaints analysis tool for use in general practice contexts and assess the validity, reliability and usability of the adapted tool.

METHODS

The study was conducted in two phases. Phase A: The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) designed for use in secondary care was adapted for use in general practice using an iterative six-stage process. Phase B: Participants from key stakeholder groups [General practitioners (n = 5), complaints managers (n = 9), health service researchers (n = 4)]. Participants completed an online survey and analysed 20 fictionalized patient complaints using the adapted tool. Inter-rater reliability and agreement with a referent standard were analysed using Gwet's AC1 statistic.

RESULTS

Phase A: The HCAT was adapted to the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (General Practice) [HCAT(GP)]. The HCAT(GP) tool consists of three domains (clinical, management and relationship problems), and seven categories. The HCAT(GP) had both content and face validity. Phase B: Inter-rater reliability was substantial for the HCAT(GP) categories (Gwet's AC1 = 0.65). Within-group agreement on the seven HCAT(GP) categories was substantial to perfect (AC1 0.61-0.85). Participants had substantial to perfect agreement with the referent standard across the survey with a mean AC1 of 0.899 (Range 0.76-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports the adaptation of the HCAT(GP) and has established that the tool has sufficient validity, reliability and usability. This adapted tool can be applied to general practice complaints to identify areas for improvement.

A multi-perspective exploration of the understanding of patient complaints and their potential for patient safety improvement in general practice

Background

Healthcare complaints are an under utilised source of information for safety improvement, particularly in general practice settings. Within general practice in Ireland, complaints management is dependent on individual practice policies, with little standardisation nationally, impeding their use for safety improvement. There is a need to understand factors that contribute to unlocking the potential of complaints for safety improvement in general practice in Ireland and internationally.

Objectives

To explore perceptions of healthcare complaints of general practitioners, practice nurses and managers, medico-legal professionals, and policymakers.

Methods

Participants were recruited using convenience sampling. Interviews were conducted from November 2019–May 2020, based on a semi-structured interview guide. Data were then transcribed and analysed using content analysis. An iterative process was applied to identify emerging themes from the interviews.

Results

A total of 29 participants (19 female, 10 male) were interviewed. Three themes emerged from the analysis, ‘why patients submit complaints’, ‘management of complaints’, and ‘impact of complaints’. Subthemes included ‘barriers and facilitators to complaining’, ‘practice processes’ for complaints management, and ‘impacts on staff’ of complaints, among others.

Conclusion

There is a lot to be learned about how individuals experience complaints, however, this study adds to existing knowledge. The findings from this study can be used to tackle challenges facing complaints management in general practice, including the barriers to complaining for patients and the negative impacts of complaints on the staff, and can also help to build on positive aspects of complaints such as the desire for systemic change among interested parties.

Medical malpractice in Norway: frequency and distribution of disciplinary actions for medical doctors 2011-2018

Background

Physicians who perform unsafe practices and harm patients may be disciplined. In Norway, there are five types of disciplinary action, ranging from a warning for the least serious examples of malpractice to loss of licence for the most serious ones. Disciplinary actions always involve medical malpractice. The aims of this study were to investigate the frequency and distribution of disciplinary actions by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision for doctors in Norway and to uncover nation-wide patient safety issues.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated all 953 disciplinary actions for doctors given by the Board between 2011 and 2018. We categorized these according to type of action, recipient’s profession, organizational factors and geographical location of the recipient. Frequencies, cross tables, rates and linear regression were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Rural general practitioners received the most disciplinary actions of all doctors and had their licence revoked or restricted 2.1 times more frequently than urban general practitioners. General practitioners and private specialists received respectively 98.7 and 91.0 disciplinary actions per 1000 doctors. Senior consultants and junior doctors working in hospitals received respectively 17.0 and 6.4 disciplinary actions per 1000 doctors. Eight times more actions were received by primary care doctors than secondary care doctors. Doctors working in primary care were given a warning 10.6 times more often and had their licence revoked or restricted 4.6 times more often than those in secondary care.

Conclusion

The distribution and frequency of disciplinary actions by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision clearly varied according to type of health care facility. Private specialists and general practitioners, especially those working in rural clinics, received the most disciplinary actions. These results deserve attention from health policy-makers and warrant further studies to determine the factors that influence medical malpractice. Moreover, the supervisory authorities should assess whether their procedures for reacting to malpractice are efficient and adequate for all types of physicians working in Norway.