Aim To determine whether analysis of unsolicited healthcare complaints specifically focusing on unprofessional behaviour can provide additional information from the patients' perspective.
Methods A qualitative study with content analysis of healthcare complaints and associated judgements using complaints filed from 2004 to 2009 at the complaints committee of a tertiary-referral centre. Subsequent comparison of the resulting categories of poor professionalism to categories perceived relevant by physicians in a previous study was performed.
Results 137 complaints (98%) yielded 46 different unprofessional behaviours grouped into 18 categories. The element ‘perceived medical complications and error’ occurred most commonly (n=77), followed by ‘having to wait for care’ and ‘insufficient or unclear clarification’ (n=52, n=48, respectively). The combined non-cognitive elements of professionalism (especially aspects of communication) were far more prominently discussed than cognitive issues (knowledge/skills) related to medical error. Most categories of professionalism elements were considered important by physicians but, nevertheless, were identified in patient complaints analysis. Some issues (eg, ‘altruism’, ‘appearance’, ‘keeping distance/respecting boundaries with patients’) were not perceived as problematic by patients and/or relatives, while mentioned by physicians. Conversely, eight categories of poor professionalism revealed from complaint analysis (eg, ‘having to wait for care’, ‘lack of continuity of care’ and ‘lack of shared decision making’) were not considered essential by physicians.
Conclusions The vast majority of unprofessional behaviour identified related to non-cognitive, professionalism aspects of care. Complaints pertaining to unsatisfactory communication were especially noticeable. Incongruence is noted between the physicians' and the patients' perception of actual care.
- Professional behaviour
- quality improvement
- quality in healthcare
- medical education training
- adult intensive critical care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Detail has been removed from these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.