4.6 Article

Patient complaints about physician behaviors: A qualitative study

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 79, 期 2, 页码 134-138

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200402000-00008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. Health care institutions are required to routinely collect and address formal patient complaints. Despite the availability of this feedback, no published efforts explore such data to improve physician behavior. The authors sought to determine the usefulness of patient complaints by establishing meaningful categories and exploring their epidemiology. Method. A register of formal, unsolicited patient complaints collected routinely at the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center-in Winston-Salem, North Carolina was used to categorize complaints using qualitative research strategies. After eliminating complaints unrelated to physician behavior, complaints from March 1999 were analyzed (60) to identify complaint categories that were then validated using complaints from January 2000 (122). Subsequently, all 1,746 complaints-for the year 2000 were examined. Those unrelated to physician behavior (1,342) and with inadequate detail (182) were excluded, leaving 222 complaints for further analysis. Results. Complaints were most commonly lodged by a patient (111), followed by a patient's spouse (33), child (52), parent (50), relative/friend (15), or health care professional (2). The most commonly identified category was disrespect (36%), followed by disagreement about expectations of care (23%), inadequate information (20%), distrust (18%), perceived unavailability (15%), interdisciplinary miscommunication (4%), and misinformation (4%). Multiple categories were identified in 42 (19%) complaints. Examples from each category provide adequate detail to develop instructional modules. Conclusion. The seven complaint categories of physician behaviors should be useful in developing curricula related to professionalism, communication skills, and practice-based learning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据