IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/65041.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The healthcare complaints analysis tool: development and reliability testing of a method for service monitoring and organisational learning

Author

Listed:
  • Gillespie, Alex
  • Reader, Tom W.

Abstract

Background Letters of complaint written by patients and their advocates reporting poor healthcare experiences represent an under-used data source. The lack of a method for extracting reliable data from these heterogeneous letters hinders their use for monitoring and learning. To address this gap, we report on the development and reliability testing of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT). Methods HCAT was developed from a taxonomy of healthcare complaints reported in a previously published systematic review. It introduces the novel idea that complaints should be analysed in terms of severity. Recruiting three groups of educated lay participants (n=58, n=58, n=55), we refined the taxonomy through three iterations of discriminant content validity testing. We then supplemented this refined taxonomy with explicit coding procedures for seven problem categories (each with four levels of severity), stage of care and harm. These combined elements were further refined through iterative coding of a UK national sample of healthcare complaints (n= 25, n=80, n=137, n=839). To assess reliability and accuracy for the resultant tool, 14 educated lay participants coded a referent sample of 125 healthcare complaints. Results The seven HCAT problem categories (quality, safety, environment, institutional processes, listening, communication, and respect and patient rights) were found to be conceptually distinct. On average, raters identified 1.94 problems (SD=0.26) per complaint letter. Coders exhibited substantial reliability in identifying problems at four levels of severity; moderate and substantial reliability in identifying stages of care (except for ‘discharge/transfer’ that was only fairly reliable) and substantial reliability in identifying overall harm. Conclusions HCAT is not only the first reliable tool for coding complaints, it is the first tool to measure the severity of complaints. It facilitates service monitoring and organisational learning and it enables future research examining whether healthcare complaints are a leading indicator of poor service outcomes. HCAT is freely available to download and use.

Suggested Citation

  • Gillespie, Alex & Reader, Tom W., 2016. "The healthcare complaints analysis tool: development and reliability testing of a method for service monitoring and organisational learning," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65041, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:65041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65041/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. E. Julie Hald & Alex Gillespie & Tom W. Reader, 2021. "Causal and Corrective Organisational Culture: A Systematic Review of Case Studies of Institutional Failure," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 457-483, November.
    2. Hald, Julie & Gillespie, Alex & Reader, Tom W., 2021. "Causal and corrective organisational culture: a systematic review of case studies of institutional failure," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106537, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Bez, Sea Matilda & Georgescu, Irène & Farazi, Mohammad Saleh, 2023. "TripAdvisor of healthcare:Opportunities for value creation through patient feedback platforms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:65041. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.