Search results

This study aims to construct an instrument for identifying certain attributes or capabilities that might enable healthcare staff to use complaints to improve service quality.

PubMed and ProQuest were searched, which in turn expanded access to other literature. Three paramount dimensions emerged for healthcare quality management systems: managerial, operational, and technical (MOT).

The paper reveals that the managerial dimension relates to quality improvement program infrastructure. It contains strategy, structure, leadership, people and culture. The operational dimension relates to implementation processes: organizational changes and barriers when using complaints to enhance quality. The technical dimension emphasizes the skills, techniques or information systems required to achieve successfully continuous quality improvement.

The MOT model was developed by drawing from the relevant literature. However, individuals have different training, interests and experiences and, therefore, there will be variance between researchers when generating the MOT model.

The MOT components can be the guidelines for examining whether patient complaints are used to improve service quality. However, the model needs testing and validating by conducting further research before becoming a theory.

Empirical studies on patient complaints did not identify any analytical tool that could be used to explore how complaints can drive quality improvement. This study developed an instrument for identifying certain attributes or capabilities that might enable healthcare professionals to use complaints and improve service quality.

The purpose of this paper is to explore hospital staff response to patient complaints and the factors influencing the response pathway.

The paper uses an exploratory study in a large Taiwanese hospital purposefully chosen as a case study site. The critical incident technique (CIT) is implemented, using a questionnaire along with non‐participant observations in which the results have been triangulated. A total of 59 cases were collected.

The study found when facing “humaneness” complaints, hospital staff attempted to investigate the event and then explain the facts to the complainant or empathise with him/her and then refer the problem to the relevant unit. In response to complaints combining “communication” and “care/treatment and humaneness”, staff tended to investigate the event's details and then directly explain them to the complainant. When complaints involved “care/treatment”, staff tended to empathise with the complainant, investigate the facts and explain them to the complainant. Additionally, the organisational response to complaints was influenced by who made complaints; its type, severity, complaining method and patient status.

The literature revealed that the case study is the most common organisational study method. However, this approach is criticised for not offering findings that can be generalised.

Complaint nature is the major factor influencing the response pathway. If healthcare managers intend to reduce complaint rates then they need to carefully classify the complaint's nature. Different complaints have different handling procedures and guidelines to help managers resolve complaints in the first place.

There are extensive studies focusing on investigating complaints and their resolution. These studies tend not to demonstrate various means of handling patient complaints. Neither do they describe how different complaints might lead to different outcomes. Therefore, this paper explores hospital staff response to patient complaints and the factors influencing the pathways in response to complaints.

This study aims to explore whether and how patient voices had been taken into account within quality management systems in Hospital A in Britain and Hospital B in Taiwan.

The two hospitals were purposefully selected and the data were collected over six months, via documents, interviews, and a semi‐structured questionnaire. A mixed method strategy within an overall qualitative framework (i.e. managerial‐operational‐technical) was used to make comparisons between them.

A number of strategies were developed by both Hospital A and Hospital B to take patients' voice into account within quality systems. In an attempt to improve quality standards of services, both hospitals used patient satisfaction surveys relating to specific services to understand patients' opinions about care in outpatient services, inpatient services, or emergency services. They also set up patient suggestion boxes and managed complaints data to understand what patients needed and wanted.

There is very limited literature related to the comparison of quality systems. In particular, this study explores the mechanisms to take patients' voices into account within quality systems. The most important distinction between the two hospitals is that in Hospital A, complaints are managed by a quality manager, while in Hospital B the Social Work Department (SWD) is responsible for dealing with patient complaints. In practice, it is more effective for quality officers to take care of complaints management than social workers, in terms of using complaints to improve quality.