Research Unit of General Practice, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, DK, Denmark.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jan 7;13:9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-9.
In most health care systems disciplinary boards have been organised in order to process patients' complaints about health professionals. Although, the safe-guarding of the legal rights of the involved parties is a crucial concern, there is limited knowledge about what role the complaint process plays with regard to board decision outcomes. Using complaint cases towards general practitioners, the aim of this study was to identify what process factors are statistically associated with disciplinary actions as seen from the party of the complainant and the defendant general practitioner, respectively.
Danish Patient Complaints Board decisions concerning general practitioners completed in 2007 were examined. Information on process factors was extracted from the case files and included complaint delay, complainant's lawyer involvement, the number of general practitioners involved, event duration, expert witness involvement, case management duration and decision outcome (discipline or no discipline). Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed on compound case decisions eventually involving more general practitioners (as seen from the complainant's side) and on separated decisions (as seen from the defendant general practitioner's side).
From the general practitioner's side, when the number of general practitioners involved in a complaint case increased, odds of being disciplined significantly decreased (OR=0.661 per additional general practitioner involved, p<0.001). Contrarily, from the complainant's side, no association could be detected between complaining against a plurality of general practitioners and the odds of at least one general practitioner being disciplined. From both sides, longer case management duration was associated with higher odds of discipline (OR=1.038 per additional month, p=0.010). No association could be demonstrated with regard to complaint delay, lawyer involvement, event duration, or expert witness involvement. There was lawyer involvement in 5% of cases and expert witness involvement in 92% of cases. The mean complaint delay was 3 months and 18 days and the mean case management duration was 14 months and 7 days.
Certain complaint process factors might be statistically associated with decision outcomes. However, the impact diverges as seen from the different parties. Future studies are merited in order to uncover the judicial mechanisms lying behind.
在大多数医疗保健系统中,纪律委员会的组织旨在处理患者对医疗保健专业人员的投诉。尽管保障相关方的合法权利是一个关键问题,但对于投诉程序在纪律委员会决策结果中所扮演的角色,我们的了解有限。本研究使用针对全科医生的投诉案例,旨在确定从投诉方和被告全科医生的角度来看,哪些程序因素与纪律处分具有统计学关联。
审查了 2007 年完成的丹麦患者投诉委员会针对全科医生的决定。从案件档案中提取了有关程序因素的信息,包括投诉延迟、投诉方律师参与、涉及的全科医生数量、事件持续时间、专家证人参与、案件管理持续时间以及决策结果(纪律处分或无纪律处分)。对最终涉及更多全科医生的复合案例决策(从投诉方的角度来看)和单独决策(从被告全科医生的角度来看)进行了多变量逻辑回归分析。
从全科医生的角度来看,当投诉案件中涉及的全科医生数量增加时,被纪律处分的可能性显著降低(每增加一名全科医生,OR=0.661,p<0.001)。相反,从投诉方的角度来看,投诉多名全科医生与至少一名全科医生被纪律处分的可能性之间没有关联。从双方来看,案件管理持续时间较长与被纪律处分的可能性较高相关(每增加一个月,OR=1.038,p=0.010)。投诉延迟、律师参与、事件持续时间或专家证人参与与决策结果之间没有关联。在 5%的案例中有律师参与,在 92%的案例中有专家证人参与。投诉的平均延迟时间为 3 个月零 18 天,案件管理的平均持续时间为 14 个月零 7 天。
某些投诉程序因素可能与决策结果具有统计学关联。然而,从不同的角度来看,其影响是不同的。需要进一步的研究来揭示背后的司法机制。