Goldsmith Paul, Moon Jackie, Anderson Paul, Kirkup Steve, Williams Susan, Gray Margaret
Neurosciences, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2015;28(8):864-71. doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-06-2015-0081.
Error reporting by healthcare staff, patient-derived complaints and patient-derived medico-legal claims are three separate processes present in most healthcare systems. It is generally assumed that all relate to the same cases. Given the high costs associated with these processes and strong desire to maximise quality and standards, the purpose of this paper is to see whether it was indeed the case that most complaints and claims related to medical errors and the relative resource allocation to each group.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Electronic databases for clinical error recording, patient complaints and medico-legal claims in a large NHS healthcare provider organisation were reviewed and case overlap analysed.
Most complaints and medico-legal claims do not associate with a prior clinical error. Disproportionate resource is required for a small number of complaints and the medico-legal claims process. Most complaints and claims are not upheld.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The authors have only looked at data from one healthcare provider and for one period. It would be useful to analyse other healthcare organisations over a longer time period. The authors were unable to access data on secondary staffing costs, which would have been informative. As the medico-legal process can go on for many years, the authors do not know the ultimate outcomes for all cases. The authors also do not know how many medico-legal cases were settled out of court pragmatically to minimise costs. Practical implications - Staff error reporting systems and patient advisory services seem to be efficient and working well. However, the broader complaints and claims process is costing considerable time and money, yet may not be useful in driving up standards. System changes to maximise helpful complaints and claims, from a quality and standards perspective, and minimise unhelpful ones are recommended.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study provides important data on the lack of overlap between errors, complaints and claims cases.
医护人员的差错报告、患者提出的投诉以及患者引发的医疗法律索赔是大多数医疗系统中存在的三个不同过程。通常认为这三者都与相同的病例相关。鉴于这些过程涉及高昂成本,且人们强烈希望将质量和标准最大化,本文旨在探讨大多数投诉和索赔是否确实与医疗差错相关,以及各群体的相对资源分配情况。
设计/方法/途径:对一家大型国民健康服务(NHS)医疗服务提供机构中用于临床差错记录、患者投诉和医疗法律索赔的电子数据库进行了审查,并分析了病例重叠情况。
大多数投诉和医疗法律索赔与先前的临床差错并无关联。少数投诉和医疗法律索赔过程需要不成比例的资源。大多数投诉和索赔未得到支持。
研究局限/影响:作者仅查看了一家医疗服务提供机构某一时期的数据。分析其他医疗组织在更长时间段的数据会很有帮助。作者无法获取二级人员成本数据,而这些数据可能会提供有用信息。由于医疗法律程序可能持续多年,作者并不知晓所有病例的最终结果。作者也不知道有多少医疗法律案件通过庭外和解以务实方式降低成本。实际影响——员工差错报告系统和患者咨询服务似乎高效且运行良好。然而,更广泛的投诉和索赔过程耗费了大量时间和金钱,但可能对提高标准并无帮助。建议进行系统变革,从质量和标准角度最大化有益的投诉和索赔,并最小化无益的投诉和索赔。
原创性/价值:本研究提供了关于差错、投诉和索赔案件之间缺乏重叠的重要数据。