1. Listening, Learning, Improving
Staff views of patient complaint
policy
Deborah Schaler, MHPol, PhD Candidate
Menzies Centre for Health Policy
University of Sydney

2. Patient feedback research project aims
• Assess effectiveness of patient feedback methods (complaints,
surveys, and narrative/patient stories) in driving improvement to
health service safety or quality.
• Identify opportunities for health services to improve their use of
patient feedback.
• Develop a method for health services to aggregate and analyse
patient feedback data from multiple sources and link to service
improvement.

3. Methods
• Case Study – Sequential Mixed Methods design including Grounded
Theory methods and situational analysis mapping
• Review of peer reviewed and grey literature. Case Study: review of
policy documents, patient feedback and quality improvement data;
and safety & quality governance.
• Semi-structured interviews/ focus groups with health service staff –
45 staff comprising clinical, administrative, and safety & quality staff.
• Development of a method to aggregate patient feedback from
multiple sources.

4. Case study: staff interviews
The staff interviews were conducted following the literature review and
quantitative data analysis to:
•Provide qualitative data to inform and build on the early research
findings…….
•….. including staff comment on the effectiveness of patient complaint
management processes; and to
•identify opportunities to improve complaint management practice.

5. Staff interviews - methods
• Case study site selection criteria developed and site recruited.
• HREC approval to conduct semi-structured interviews; questions
pilot tested prior to implementation.
• Staff interviews (45) conducted: Clinical group x 36 staff including 6
clinical managers; administrative group x 9 included safety & quality
staff/complaint managers, human rights (complaints) commission
and Ministerial liaison/executive coordination.
• Interview transcripts coded and analysed for themes.

6. Themes identified from staff interviews
• Core theme: degree of separation.
• Separation from the complaint/complainant:
– Bureaucratic processes create multiple layers and ‘filtering’
between the complainant and the area the complaint is about.
Impersonal responses including writing briefs & letters instead of
discussing concerns directly with the patient/carer.
• Separation from data:
– meaningless numbers presented in data reports. No narrative or
patient voice.
– timeliness – reports provided too late for area to address issues.

7. Overview of results: staff interviews
Clinicians/clinical managers clearly committed to patient safety and
continual service improvement and value patient feedback, including
complaints, as a service improvement tool.
Bureaucratic practices hamper ability of services to link patient
complaints with service improvement.
Clinicians therefore turning to other methods to elicit patient feedback
for service improvement e.g. patient experience trackers.

8. Differences across professional groups
Clinicians: connect patient complaints with both individual patient
experience and service improvement.
-Priority: respond to the complaint (i) immediately,(ii) personally, (iii)
effectively with satisfactory closure and (iv) link to improved patient
experience and service improvement.
-Patient/carer is central ‘driver’ in the complaint process.
Administrative staff: connect complaints with individual patient
experience or satisfaction; service improvement not really on radar.
-Priority is to comply with administrative processes and time frames.
-Minister/Executive is central ‘driver’ of the complaint process.

9. Opportunities to improve practice
• AGREED across all professional groups: need a more personal and
immediate approach to managing complaints.
• Challenge: current (case study site) policy treats complaints the
same way regardless of clinical/other seriousness.
• Opportunity: Apply risk matrix to complaints. Level of risk
determines type and timeframe for response. Complaint response to
be immediate and communication to occur directly with the area the
complaint was about (caveat if vulnerable patient or patient
advocate required).

10. • Narrative is powerful and drives service improvement.
• Challenges: need balance of + and - stories; complaint data reports
lack narrative ‘patient voice is lost in the numbers’.
• Opportunity: include narrative in patient complaint data reports;
capture & report compliments better.
Opportunities to improve practice

11. •Using patient feedback data to drive service improvement.
•Challenge: data silos; no method to aggregate and analyse patient
feedback from multiple sources or to link patient feedback and clinical
incident data.
•Opportunity: patient safety intelligence network: this research project
proposes a method to aggregate patient feedback and clinical incident
data by coding all data sources according to Picker Principle (quality)
and ASQHCS standards (safety).
Opportunities to improve practice

12. Research translation/policy implications
Health services should:
•manage complaints according to risk – clinical or other seriousness.
•manage complaints immediately and directly with patient/carer.
•aggregate and analyse patient feedback data and link to service
improvement.

13. References
• Ward, JK; Armitage, G. (2012). Can patients report patient safety incidents in a hospital setting? A systematic
review. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21: 685-699
• King, A; Daniels, J; Lim, J; Cochrane DD; Taylor, A; Ansermino, JM; (2010). Time to listen: a review of methods to
solicit patient reports of adverse events. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19 148-157
• Reader, TW; Gillespie, A, Roberts, J. (2014) Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a systematic review and
coding taxonomy. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;0: 1-12
• Roberts, G; Cornwell, J; (2011) What matters to patients? Policy recommendations . Department of Health and
NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement
• Coulter, A; Fitzpatrick, R; Cornwell, J; (2009) The Point of Care: Measures of patient’s experience in hospital:
purpose, methods and uses. London. The King’s Fund
• Goodrich, J; Cornwell, J (2008): Seeing the person in the patient. The Point of Care review paper. London. The
Kings Fund www.healthissuescentre.org.au
• Davies, E; Cleary, PD; (2004) Hearing the patient’s voice? Factors affecting the use of patient survey data in
quality improvement. Qual Saf Health Care 2005: 14:428-432
• Davies et al Factors affecting the use of patient survey data for quality improvement in the Veteran Health
Administration BMC Health Services Research 2011, 11:334
• Coulter, A; Ellins, J ; (2006) Patient-focused interventions. A review of the evidence. Picker Institute Europe
• Draper et al (2001) Seeking consumer views: what use are results of hospital patient satisfaction surveys?
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2001; Volume 13, Number 6: pp.463-468
• Luxford et al (2011) Promoting patient-centred care: a qualitative study of facilitators and barriers in healthcare
organizations with a reputation for improving the patient experience International Journal for Quality in Health
Care 2011; Volume 23, Number 5:pp510-515

14. For more information
• Contact: deborah.schaler@act.gov.au