在医疗相关的伤害之后,人们会做什么?影响决策的经验与因素的质性研究。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lavanya Thana, Helen Crocker, Shivali Modha, Linda Mulcahy, Catherine Pope, Charles Vincent, Helen Hogan, Michele Peters
{"title":"在医疗相关的伤害之后,人们会做什么?影响决策的经验与因素的质性研究。","authors":"Lavanya Thana, Helen Crocker, Shivali Modha, Linda Mulcahy, Catherine Pope, Charles Vincent, Helen Hogan, Michele Peters","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To capture experiences of people self-reporting harm and contrast responses and actions between those who do or do not take formal action.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Semi-structured qualitative interview study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>People self-reporting harm experienced in the National Health Service (NHS) or their family/friends identified from a general Great British population survey.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>49 participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>People 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What do people do in the aftermath of healthcare-related harm? A qualitative study on experiences and factors influencing decision-making.\",\"authors\":\"Lavanya Thana, Helen Crocker, Shivali Modha, Linda Mulcahy, Catherine Pope, Charles Vincent, Helen Hogan, Michele Peters\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To capture experiences of people self-reporting harm and contrast responses and actions between those who do or do not take formal action.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Semi-structured qualitative interview study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>People self-reporting harm experienced in the National Health Service (NHS) or their family/friends identified from a general Great British population survey.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>49 participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>People 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018214\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018214","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:捕捉人们自我报告伤害的经历,并对比那些采取或不采取正式行动的人的反应和行动。设计:半结构化定性访谈研究。背景:人们自我报告在国民健康服务(NHS)或他们的家人/朋友中经历的伤害,这些伤害是由英国一般人口调查确定的。人数:49人。结果:无论是否采取正式行动(包括正式投诉或诉讼),伤害后的经历都有共性。许多参与者报告说,他们非正式地向NHS工作人员提出了担忧,试图获得解释或支持,但通常都不成功。关于行动的决策是复杂的。不采取正式行动的原因有很多,包括害怕破坏与临床医生的关系,忙于应对伤害的后果,或者不想对NHS采取行动。国民保健制度的宣传服务被认为没有帮助。了解如何进行并感觉有权这样做,以及积极主动的社交网络,可以促进行动,但通常只有在人们因没有得到NHS的解释、道歉或康复支持而感到愤怒和沮丧之后才会采取行动。那些来自边缘群体的人更有可能感到无权采取行动,或因家庭或社会接触而气馁,这可能导致自我疏远,并降低对服务的信任。结论:人们在受到伤害后积极寻求解决和恢复,但在解释、道歉和支持方面往往面临多重障碍。开放和富有同情心的参与,特别是与那些来自更边缘化社区的人的参与,加上针对需求的量身定制的支持,可以促进康复,减少复合伤害,并减少使用其他提供可能更有帮助的申诉服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What do people do in the aftermath of healthcare-related harm? A qualitative study on experiences and factors influencing decision-making.

Objectives: To capture experiences of people self-reporting harm and contrast responses and actions between those who do or do not take formal action.

Design: Semi-structured qualitative interview study.

Setting: People self-reporting harm experienced in the National Health Service (NHS) or their family/friends identified from a general Great British population survey.

Participants: 49 participants.

Results: There 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.

Conclusions: People 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信