从投诉材料到质量改进:探索在质量改进计划中使用患者投诉或赔偿索赔-范围审查。

IF 6.5 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sebrina Maj-Britt Hansen, Mette Kring Clausen, Nana Roust Hansen, Mette Brandt Eriksen, Anne Kragh Sørensen, Søren Bie Bogh, Søren Fryd Birkeland, Lars Morsø
{"title":"从投诉材料到质量改进:探索在质量改进计划中使用患者投诉或赔偿索赔-范围审查。","authors":"Sebrina Maj-Britt Hansen, Mette Kring Clausen, Nana Roust Hansen, Mette Brandt Eriksen, Anne Kragh Sørensen, Søren Bie Bogh, Søren Fryd Birkeland, Lars Morsø","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is increasing interest in how patient complaint material can be used to highlight areas requiring quality improvement (QI) in healthcare. However, knowledge of using complaint material to initiate or monitor QI is limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review explored the use of complaint material in QI by identifying problems related to substandard care that were addressed by QI initiatives, exploring how complaint material was used before or after a QI initiative, and mapping changes in complaint material after QI initiatives.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guideline.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Studies were included if a QI initiative was initiated or monitored using complaint material. Eligible designs included observational studies, QI projects, pre-intervention and post-intervention studies and randomised controlled trials. Audio, online and symptom-based complaints were excluded.</p><p><strong>Information sources: </strong>A systematic search was conducted on 10 December 2024 in Embase, Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science, and additional sources, with no language or date limitations.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Substandard problems targeted by QI initiatives were categorised using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool by two independent coders. Findings were synthesised narratively and summarised using frequency analyses where applicable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 58 QI initiatives, most frequently targeting safety (n=39). Before QI, complaint material was usually analysed through review (n=19), counts (n=17), content categorisation (n=9) or root cause analysis (n=2). After QI, analyses included counts (n=34), rates (n=20), content categorisation (n=7) and review (n=4). Reviewing or categorisation methods were often unspecified. Among studies using complaints as an outcome, most reported complaint reductions (n=43), while a few reported increases (n=2) or mixed results (n=4).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The QI initiatives primarily targeted patient safety and applied simple quantitative analyses. Some studies relied on reviews or categorisations without reporting the validation or reliability of the used tools. Improved reporting standards are needed to strengthen learning. Furthermore, while QI initiatives appear to have the potential to change complaint patterns, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as this is based on a scoping review.</p><p><strong>Other: </strong>Preregistered protocol: https://osf.io/6g4qw.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From complaint material to quality improvement: Exploring the use of patient complaints or compensation claims in quality improvement initiatives-a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Sebrina Maj-Britt Hansen, Mette Kring Clausen, Nana Roust Hansen, Mette Brandt Eriksen, Anne Kragh Sørensen, Søren Bie Bogh, Søren Fryd Birkeland, Lars Morsø\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018780\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is increasing interest in how patient complaint material can be used to highlight areas requiring quality improvement (QI) in healthcare. However, knowledge of using complaint material to initiate or monitor QI is limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review explored the use of complaint material in QI by identifying problems related to substandard care that were addressed by QI initiatives, exploring how complaint material was used before or after a QI initiative, and mapping changes in complaint material after QI initiatives.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guideline.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Studies were included if a QI initiative was initiated or monitored using complaint material. Eligible designs included observational studies, QI projects, pre-intervention and post-intervention studies and randomised controlled trials. Audio, online and symptom-based complaints were excluded.</p><p><strong>Information sources: </strong>A systematic search was conducted on 10 December 2024 in Embase, Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science, and additional sources, with no language or date limitations.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Substandard problems targeted by QI initiatives were categorised using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool by two independent coders. Findings were synthesised narratively and summarised using frequency analyses where applicable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 58 QI initiatives, most frequently targeting safety (n=39). Before QI, complaint material was usually analysed through review (n=19), counts (n=17), content categorisation (n=9) or root cause analysis (n=2). After QI, analyses included counts (n=34), rates (n=20), content categorisation (n=7) and review (n=4). Reviewing or categorisation methods were often unspecified. Among studies using complaints as an outcome, most reported complaint reductions (n=43), while a few reported increases (n=2) or mixed results (n=4).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The QI initiatives primarily targeted patient safety and applied simple quantitative analyses. Some studies relied on reviews or categorisations without reporting the validation or reliability of the used tools. Improved reporting standards are needed to strengthen learning. Furthermore, while QI initiatives appear to have the potential to change complaint patterns, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as this is based on a scoping review.</p><p><strong>Other: </strong>Preregistered protocol: https://osf.io/6g4qw.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-08\",\"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-2025-018780\",\"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-2025-018780","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

背景:人们对如何利用患者投诉材料来突出医疗保健中需要质量改进(QI)的领域越来越感兴趣。然而,使用投诉材料来启动或监控QI的知识是有限的。目的:本综述探讨了投诉材料在QI中的使用,通过识别QI倡议所解决的与不合格护理相关的问题,探索在QI倡议之前或之后如何使用投诉材料,并绘制QI倡议之后投诉材料的变化。方法:该范围评价遵循乔安娜布里格斯研究所的方法,并遵循系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价报告指南的首选报告项目。资格标准:如果使用投诉材料发起或监测了质量评价倡议,则纳入研究。符合条件的设计包括观察性研究、QI项目、干预前和干预后研究以及随机对照试验。排除了音频、在线和基于症状的投诉。信息来源:系统检索于2024年12月10日在Embase、Medline、CINAHL和Web of Science以及其他来源进行,没有语言和日期限制。结果综合:由两名独立编码员使用医疗投诉分析工具对QI计划所针对的不合格问题进行分类。在适用的情况下,使用频率分析对调查结果进行综合叙述和总结。结果:我们确定了58项QI措施,最常见的是针对安全性(n=39)。在QI之前,投诉材料通常通过回顾(n=19)、计数(n=17)、内容分类(n=9)或根本原因分析(n=2)进行分析。QI后,分析包括计数(n=34)、比率(n=20)、内容分类(n=7)和回顾(n=4)。审查或分类方法往往不明确。在使用投诉作为结果的研究中,大多数报告投诉减少(n=43),而少数报告投诉增加(n=2)或混合结果(n=4)。讨论:QI计划主要针对患者安全并应用简单的定量分析。一些研究依赖于综述或分类,而没有报告所使用工具的有效性或可靠性。需要改进报告标准以加强学习。此外,虽然QI计划似乎有可能改变投诉模式,但应该谨慎地解释这一发现,因为这是基于范围审查。其他:预注册协议:https://osf.io/6g4qw。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From complaint material to quality improvement: Exploring the use of patient complaints or compensation claims in quality improvement initiatives-a scoping review.

Background: There is increasing interest in how patient complaint material can be used to highlight areas requiring quality improvement (QI) in healthcare. However, knowledge of using complaint material to initiate or monitor QI is limited.

Objectives: This review explored the use of complaint material in QI by identifying problems related to substandard care that were addressed by QI initiatives, exploring how complaint material was used before or after a QI initiative, and mapping changes in complaint material after QI initiatives.

Methods: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guideline.

Eligibility criteria: Studies were included if a QI initiative was initiated or monitored using complaint material. Eligible designs included observational studies, QI projects, pre-intervention and post-intervention studies and randomised controlled trials. Audio, online and symptom-based complaints were excluded.

Information sources: A systematic search was conducted on 10 December 2024 in Embase, Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science, and additional sources, with no language or date limitations.

Synthesis of results: Substandard problems targeted by QI initiatives were categorised using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool by two independent coders. Findings were synthesised narratively and summarised using frequency analyses where applicable.

Results: We identified 58 QI initiatives, most frequently targeting safety (n=39). Before QI, complaint material was usually analysed through review (n=19), counts (n=17), content categorisation (n=9) or root cause analysis (n=2). After QI, analyses included counts (n=34), rates (n=20), content categorisation (n=7) and review (n=4). Reviewing or categorisation methods were often unspecified. Among studies using complaints as an outcome, most reported complaint reductions (n=43), while a few reported increases (n=2) or mixed results (n=4).

Discussion: The QI initiatives primarily targeted patient safety and applied simple quantitative analyses. Some studies relied on reviews or categorisations without reporting the validation or reliability of the used tools. Improved reporting standards are needed to strengthen learning. Furthermore, while QI initiatives appear to have the potential to change complaint patterns, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as this is based on a scoping review.

Other: Preregistered protocol: https://osf.io/6g4qw.

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