Dataset Information

Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool: reliability testing on a sample of Danish patient compensation claims.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The study aim was to test the intra-assessor and interassessor reliability of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for categorising the information in the claim letters in a sample of Danish patient compensation claims. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:We used a random sample of 140 compensation cases completed by the Danish Patient Compensation Association that were filed in the field of acute medicine at Danish hospitals from 2007 to 2018. Four assessors were trained in using the HCAT manual before assessing the claim letters independently. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Intra-assessor and interassessor reliability was tested at domain, problem category and subcategory levels of the HCAT. We also investigated the reliability of ratings on the level of harm and of the descriptive details contained in the claim letters. RESULTS:The HCAT was reliable for identifying problem categories, with reliability scores ranging from 0.55 to 0.99. Reliability was lower when coding the 'severity' of the problem. Interassessor reliability was generally lower than intra-assessor reliability. The categories of 'quality' and 'safety' were the least reliable of the seven HCAT problem categories. Reliability at the subcategory level was generally satisfactory, with only a few subcategories having poor reliability. Reliability was at least moderate when coding the stage of care, the complainant and the staff group involved. However, the coding of 'level of harm' was found to be unreliable (intrareliability 0.06; inter-reliability 0.29). CONCLUSION:Overall, HCAT was found to be a reliable tool for categorising problem types in patient compensation claims.

SUBMITTER: Bogh SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6887041 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool: reliability testing on a sample of Danish patient compensation claims.

Bogh Soren Bie SB Kerring Jonas Harder JH Jakobsen Katrine Prisak KP Hilsøe Camilla Hagemann CH Mikkelsen Kim K Birkeland Søren Fryd SF

BMJ open 20191125 11

<h4>Objective</h4>The study aim was to test the intra-assessor and interassessor reliability of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for categorising the information in the claim letters in a sample of Danish patient compensation claims.<h4>Design, setting and participants</h4>We used a random sample of 140 compensation cases completed by the Danish Patient Compensation Association that were filed in the field of acute medicine at Danish hospitals from 2007 to 2018. Four assessors were ...[more]

PMID: 31772109

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLetters 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).MethodsHCAT 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsHCAT 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.

Project description:Background Invasive surgical procedures carry risk of harm to patients. In addition to avoidable harm, disparities between patient expectations and the outcome of a procedure may lead to patient injury claims. The follow-up of claims and compensation is an important entity for patient safety. The number of claims should be related to the surgical volume, so that a healthcare provider can benchmark with similar organizations and see if its trends are developing favourably or deteriorating. Our objective was to find out the claims and compensation rates due to surgery in an insurance-based system. Methods Data related to surgical claims and reference volume in the period 2011–2015 were collected from the claim register of the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre and benchmarking community register of Finnish operating departments. The data included age, gender, hospital, year of surgery, surgical code, and outcome of the claim. Results There were 8,901 claims related to the corresponding reference group of 1,470,435 surgical procedures. The claims rate was 0.61% and compensation rate was 0.22%. Trends for claims and compensation rates decreased over the study period. In high volume procedures, a low compensation rate was detected for excision of tonsils and adenoids, Caesarean section and extracapsular cataract operations using the phacoemulsification technique. A high compensation rate was detected for primary prosthetic replacement of the hip and knee joints and decompression of spinal cord and nerve roots. Unreasonable injury (death or permanent deterioration of health) was compensated in 2.4 per 100,000 procedures. Conclusions Register data research in a no-fault patient insurance system revealed a claims rate of 6 per 1,000 procedures and compensation rate of 2 per 1,000 procedures. A decreasing trend in both rates over the study period was detected. Different surgical procedures exhibit varying claims and compensation rates. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13037-023-00353-0.

Project description:BackgroundUniversal Health coverage (UHC) is the mantra of the twenty-first century yet knowing when it has been achieved or how to best influence its progression remains elusive. An innovative framework for High Performing Healthcare (HPHC) attempts to address these issues. It focuses on measuring four constructs of Accountable, Affordable, Accessible, and Reliable (AAAR) healthcare that contribute to better health outcomes and impact. The HPHC tool collects information on the perceived functionality of health system processes and provides real-time data analysis on the AAAR constructs, and on processes for health system resilience, responsiveness, and quality, that include roles of community, private sector, as well as both demand, and supply factors affecting health system performance. The tool attempts to capture the multidimensionality of UHC measurement and evidence that links health system strengthening activities to outcomes. This paper provides evidence on the reliability and validity of the tool.MethodsInternet survey with non-probability sampling was used for testing reliability and validity of the HPHC tool. The volunteers were recruited using international networks and listservs. Two hundred and thirteen people from public, private, civil society and international organizations volunteered from 35 low-and-middle-income countries. Analyses involved testing reliability and validity and validation from other international sources of information as well as applicability in different setting and contexts.ResultsThe HPHC tool's AAAR constructs, and their sub-domains showed high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha >.80) and construct validity. The tool scores normal distribution displayed variations among respondents. In addition, the tool demonstrated its precision and relevance in different contexts/countries. The triangulation of HPHC findings with other international data sources further confirmed the tool's validity.ConclusionsBesides being reliable and valid, the HPHC tool adds value to the state of health system measurement by focusing on linkages between AAAR processes and health outcomes. It ensures that health system stakeholders take responsibility and are accountable for better system performance, and the community is empowered to participate in decision-making process. The HPHC tool collects and analyzes data in real time with minimum costs, supports monitoring, and promotes adaptive management, policy, and program development for better health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough research findings consistently find poor communication about medical procedures to be a key predictor of patient complaints, compensation claims, and malpractice lawsuits ("complaints"), there is insufficient evidence to determine if greater patient involvement could actually affect the inclination to complain.ObjectivesWe conducted an experimental case vignette survey that explores whether greater patient involvement in decision-making is likely to influence the intention to complain given different decisions and consequences.MethodsRandomized, national case vignette survey with various levels of patient involvement, decisions, and outcomes in a representative Danish sample of men. We used prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening in men aged 45 to 70 years as the intervention illustrated in 30 different versions of a mock clinical encounter. Versions differed in the amount of patient involvement, the decision made (PSA test or no PSA test), and the clinical outcomes (no cancer detected, detection of treatable cancer, and detection of non-treatable cancer). We measured respondents' inclination to complain about care in response to the scenarios on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1: very unlikely to 5: very likely).ResultsThe response rate was 30% (6,756 of 22,288). Across all scenarios, the likelihood of complaint increased if the clinical outcome was poor (untreatable cancer). Compared with scenarios that involved shared decision-making (SDM), neutral information, or nudging in favor of screening, the urge to complain increased if the patient was excluded from decision-making or if the doctor had nudged the patient to decline screening (mean Likert differences .12 to .16, p < .001). With neutral involvement or nudging in favor of intervention, the desire to complain depended highly on the decision reached and on the patient's course. This dependence was smaller with SDM.ConclusionsGreater patient involvement in decision-making appears to be associated with less intention to complain about health care, with SDM resulting in the greatest reduction in complaint likelihood.

Dataset Information

Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool: reliability testing on a sample of Danish patient compensation claims.

Publications

Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool: reliability testing on a sample of Danish patient compensation claims.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets