Associations between knowledge of health issues and health care satisfaction and propensity to complain: a cross-sectional survey of adult men in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate associations between knowledge of health issues and healthcare satisfaction and propensity to complain including the association between knowledge and greater patient involvement. DESIGN: The present study is a secondary analysis of a larger cross-sectional case vignette survey. SETTING: Survey conducted in adult Danish men. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 6755 men aged 45-70 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants responded to a survey with scenarios illustrating prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and different information provision. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using Likert scales (scored 1-5), participants rated their satisfaction with the care described and their inclination to complain and responded to a short quiz (scored 0-3) assessing their knowledge about the PSA test. RESULTS: Satisfaction with healthcare increased with better quiz performance (Likert difference 0.13 (95% CI .07 to 0.20), p <0.001, totally correct vs totally incorrect responders) and correspondingly, the desire to complain significantly decreased (Likert difference -0.34 (95% CI 0.40 to -0.27), p <0.001). Respondents with higher education performed better (mean quiz score difference 0.59 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.67), p <0.001, most educated vs least educated). Responders who received information about the PSA test generally performed better (quiz score difference 0.41 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.47), p<0.001, neutral vs no information). Overestimation of PSA merits was more common than underestimation (7.9% vs 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Mens' knowledge of the benefits of screening varies with education, predicts satisfaction with care and the desire to complain, and may be improved through greater involvement in decision-making.

Is greater patient involvement associated with higher satisfaction? Experimental evidence from a vignette survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centredness is an essential quality parameter of modern healthcare. Accordingly, involving patients in decisions about care is required by international laws and an increasing number of medical codes and standards. These directives are based on ethical principles of autonomy. Still, there is limited empirical knowledge about the influence of patient involvement on satisfaction with care. OBJECTIVE: In a large national vignette survey, we aimed to empirically test healthcare users' satisfaction with healthcare given different degrees of patient involvement, choices made and outcomes. METHODS: A web-based cross-sectional survey distributed to a randomised sample of men in Denmark aged 45-70 years. Case vignettes used prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for early detection of prostate cancer as a clinical model. Using a 5-point Likert scale, we measured respondents' satisfaction with care in scenarios which differed in the amount of patient involvement (ranging from no involvement, through involvement with neutral or nudged information, to shared decision-making), the decision made (PSA test or no PSA test) and clinical outcomes (no cancer detected, detection of treatable cancer and detection of non-treatable cancer). RESULTS: Participating healthcare users tended to be more satisfied with healthcare in scenarios illustrating greater levels of patient involvement. Participants were positive towards nudging in favour of the intervention but patient involvement through shared decision-making obtained the highest satisfaction ratings (Likert rating 3.81 without any involvement vs 4.07 for shared decision-making, p<0.001). Greater involvement also had an ameliorating effect on satisfaction if a non-treatable cancer was later diagnosed. CONCLUSION: Our study provides empirical support for the hypothesis that greater patient involvement in healthcare decision-making improves satisfaction with care irrespective of decisions made and clinical outcomes. Overall satisfaction with the care illustrated was highest when decisions were reached through shared decision-making.

Does greater patient involvement in healthcare decision-making affect malpractice complaints? A large case vignette survey.

BACKGROUND: Although 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. OBJECTIVES: We 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. METHODS: Randomized, 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). RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Greater 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.

The impact of public performance reporting on cancer elective surgery waiting times: a data linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Excessive waiting times for cancer elective surgery are a concern in publicly funded healthcare systems. Several countries including Australia have introduced healthcare reforms involving time-based targets and public performance reporting (PPR) of hospital data. However, there is mixed evidence of their benefits. We sought to examine the impact of targets and PPR of cancer elective surgery waiting times on access to breast, bowel and lung cancer elective surgery. METHODS: We analysed routinely-collected linked data on admissions and waiting times for patients aged 15 years or over (n = 199,885) who underwent cancer surgery in a public hospital in Victoria, Australia over a 10-year period. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses to compare waiting times before (2006-07 to 2011-12) and after (2012-13 to 2015-16) the introduction of PPR in meeting these targets. RESULTS: Across all cancer types, urgent patients were all treated within 30 days before and after PPR. Following PPR, there was a slight increase in the mean waiting times across all cancer types and urgency categories. Patients with lung cancer waited on average two and half days longer for treatment and patients with breast cancer waited on average half-a-day less. There was no effect of PPR on waiting times for patients with bowel cancer across urgency categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that time-based targets and PPR had minimal impact on surgical waiting times. This may be due to reasonable waiting times prior to PPR, improved efficiency being masked by 20% growth in the population, lack of public knowledge that waiting times are publicly reported, or lack of real-time reporting to drive behavioural change. The use of generic elective surgery recommended waiting time measures for cancer is discussed.

The ageing surgeon: a qualitative study of expert opinions on assuring performance and supporting safe career transitions among older surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Unlike some other safety critical professions, there is no mandatory age of retirement for doctors, including surgeons. Medical regulators in Australia are implementing additional checks on doctors from the age of 70. We describe expert opinions on assuring performance and supporting career transitions among older surgeons. METHODS: In this qualitative study, experts in four countries were purposively selected for their expertise in surgical governance. Experts responded to interviews (Australia, New Zealand and UK) or a survey (Canada). A tiered framework of interventions was developed by integrating findings with previous literature and responsive regulation theory. RESULTS: 52 experts participated. Participants valued the contribution of senior surgeons, while acknowledging that age-related changes can affect performance. Participants perceived that identity, relationships and finances influence retirement decisions. Experts were divided on the need for age-specific testing, with some favouring whole-of-career approaches to assuring safe care. A lack of validated tools for assessing performance of older surgeons was highlighted. Participants identified three options for addressing performance concerns-remediate, restrict or retire-and emphasised the need for co-ordinated and timely responses. CONCLUSION: Experts perceive the need for a staged approach to assessing the performance of older surgeons and tailoring interventions. Most older surgeons are seen to make decisions around career transitions with self-awareness and concern for patient safety. Some older surgeons may benefit from additional guidance and support from employers and professional colleges. A few poorly performing older surgeons, who are recalcitrant or lack insight, require regulatory action to protect patient safety. Developing robust processes to assess performance, remediate deficits and adjust scopes of practice could help to support safe career transitions at any age.

'Poking the skunk': Ethical and medico-legal concerns in research about patients' experiences of medical injury.

Improving how health care providers respond to medical injury requires an understanding of patients' experiences. Although many injured patients strongly desire to be heard, research rarely involves them. Institutional review boards worry about harming participants by asking them to revisit traumatic events, and hospital staff worry about provoking lawsuits. Institutions' reluctance to approve this type of research has slowed progress toward responses to injuries that are better able to meet patients' needs. In 2015-2016, we were able to surmount these challenges and interview 92 injured patients and families in the USA and New Zealand. This article explores whether the ethical and medico-legal concerns are, in fact, well-founded. Consistent with research about trauma-research-related distress, our participants' accounts indicate that the pervasive fears about retraumatization are unfounded. Our experience also suggests that because being heard is an important (but often unmet) need for injured patients, talking provides psychological benefits and may decrease rather than increase the impetus to sue. Our article makes recommendations to institutional review boards and researchers. The benefits to responsibly conducted research with injured patients outweigh the risks to participants and institutions.

Identification of practitioners at high risk of complaints to health profession regulators.

BACKGROUND: Some health practitioners pose substantial threats to patient safety, yet early identification of them is notoriously difficult. We aimed to develop an algorithm for use by regulators in prospectively identifying practitioners at high risk of attracting formal complaints about health, conduct or performance issues. METHODS: Using 2011-2016 data from the national regulator of health practitioners in Australia, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 14 registered health professions. We used recurrent-event survival analysis to estimate the risk of a complaint and used the results of this analysis to develop an algorithm for identifying practitioners at high risk of complaints. We evaluated the algorithm's discrimination, calibration and predictive properties. RESULTS: Participants were 715,415 registered health practitioners (55% nurses, 15% doctors, 6% midwives, 5% psychologists, 4% pharmacists, 15% other). The algorithm, PRONE-HP (Predicted Risk of New Event for Health Practitioners), incorporated predictors for sex, age, profession and specialty, number of prior complaints and complaint issue. Discrimination was good (C-index = 0·77, 95% CI 0·76-0·77). PRONE-HP's score values were closely calibrated with risk of a future complaint: practitioners with a score ≤ 4 had a 1% chance of a complaint within 24 months and those with a score ≥ 35 had a higher than 85% chance. Using the 90th percentile of scores within each profession to define "high risk", the predictive accuracy of PRONE-HP was good for doctors and dentists (PPV = 93·1% and 91·6%, respectively); moderate for chiropractors (PPV = 71·1%), psychologists (PPV = 54·9%), pharmacists (PPV = 39·9%) and podiatrists (PPV = 34·0%); and poor for other professions. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of PRONE-HP in predicting complaint risks varied substantially across professions. It showed particular promise for flagging doctors and dentists at high risk of accruing further complaints. Close review of available information on flagged practitioners may help to identify troubling patterns and imminent risks to patients.

Public performance reporting and hospital choice: a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Australian private healthcare sector.

OBJECTIVES: National mandatory public performance reporting (PPR) for Australian public hospitals, including measures of cancer surgery waiting times, was introduced in 2011. PPR is voluntary for private hospitals. The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data is used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer when selecting a hospital for elective surgery and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. DESIGN: A national cross-sectional postal questionnaire. SETTING: Australian private healthcare sector. PARTICIPANTS: Private patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital for elective surgery (n=243) in 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' choice of hospital, use of PPR information and preferred areas of PPR information. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight respondents (94%) attended a private hospital. Almost half could choose a hospital. Choice of hospital was not influenced by PPR data (92% unaware) but by their specialist (90%). Respondents considered PPR to be important (71%) but they did not want to see the information, preferring their general practitioners (GPs) to tell them about it (40%). Respondents considered surgery costs (59%), complications (58%) and recovery success rates (57%) to be important areas of information that should be publicly reported. Almost half suggested that quality indicators should be reported at the individual clinician level. Analysis of the open-ended questions identified four themes: (1) decision-making factors; (2) data credibility; (3) unmet information needs and (4) unintended consequences. CONCLUSIONS: PPR of hospital data had no substantial impact on patients' choice of hospital. Nonetheless, many respondents expressed interest in using it in future. To increase PPR awareness and usability, personalised and integrated information on cost and quality of hospitals is required. Dissemination of PPR information via specialists and GPs could assist patients to interpret the data and support decision-making.

Why do surgeons receive more complaints than their physician peers?

BACKGROUND: Compared with other doctors, surgeons are at an increased risk of medicolegal events, including patient complaints and negligence claims. This retrospective study aimed to describe the frequency and nature of complaints involving surgeons compared with physicians. METHODS: We assembled a national data set of complaints about surgeons and physicians lodged with medical regulators in Australia from 2011 to 2016. We classified the complaints into 19 issues across four domains: treatment and procedures, other performance, professional conduct and health. We assessed differences in complaint risk using incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Finally, we used a multivariate model to identify predictors of complaints among surgeons. RESULTS: The rate of complaints was 2.3 times higher for surgeons than physicians (112 compared with 48 complaints per 1000 practice years, P < 0.001). Two-fifths (41%) of the higher rate of complaints among surgeons was attributable to issues other than treatments and procedures, including fees (IRR = 2.68), substance use (IRR = 2.10), communication (IRR = 1.98) and interpersonal behaviour (IRR = 1.92). Male surgeons were at a higher risk of complaints, as were specialists in orthopaedics, plastic surgery and neurosurgery. DISCUSSION: Surgeons are more than twice as likely to attract complaints as their physician peers. This elevated risk arises partly from involvement in surgical procedures and treatments, but also reflects wider concerns about interpersonal skills, professional ethics and substance use. Improved understanding of these patterns may assist efforts to reduce harm and support safe practise.

Disclosing Adverse Events to Patients: International Norms and Trends.

OBJECTIVES: There is a growing expectation in health systems around the world that patients will be fully informed when adverse events occur. However, current disclosure practices often fall short of this expectation. METHODS: We reviewed trends in policy and practice in 5 countries with extensive experience with adverse event disclosure: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. RESULTS: We identified 5 themes that reflect key challenges to disclosure: (1) the challenge of putting policy into large-scale practice, (2) the conflict between patient safety theory and patient expectations, (3) the conflict between legal privilege for quality improvement and open disclosure, (4) the challenge of aligning open disclosure with liability compensation, and (5) the challenge of measurement related to disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: Potential solutions include health worker education coupled with incentives to embed policy into practice, better communication about approaches beyond the punitive, legislation that allows both disclosure to patients and quality improvement protection for institutions, apology protection for providers, comprehensive disclosure programs that include patient compensation, delinking of patient compensation from regulatory scrutiny of disclosing physicians, legal and contractual requirements for disclosure, and better measurement of its occurrence and quality. A longer-term solution involves educating the public and health care workers about patient safety.

The PRONE score: an algorithm for predicting doctors' risks of formal patient complaints using routinely collected administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Medicolegal agencies-such as malpractice insurers, medical boards and complaints bodies-are mostly passive regulators; they react to episodes of substandard care, rather than intervening to prevent them. At least part of the explanation for this reactive role lies in the widely recognised difficulty of making robust predictions about medicolegal risk at the individual clinician level. We aimed to develop a simple, reliable scoring system for predicting Australian doctors' risks of becoming the subject of repeated patient complaints. METHODS: Using routinely collected administrative data, we constructed a national sample of 13,849 formal complaints against 8424 doctors. The complaints were lodged by patients with state health service commissions in Australia over a 12-year period. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of subsequent complaints, defined as another complaint occurring within 2 years of an index complaint. Model estimates were then used to derive a simple predictive algorithm, designed for application at the doctor level. RESULTS: The PRONE (Predicted Risk Of New Event) score is a 22-point scoring system that indicates a doctor's future complaint risk based on four variables: a doctor's specialty and sex, the number of previous complaints and the time since the last complaint. The PRONE score performed well in predicting subsequent complaints, exhibiting strong validity and reliability and reasonable goodness of fit (c-statistic=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The PRONE score appears to be a valid method for assessing individual doctors' risks of attracting recurrent complaints. Regulators could harness such information to target quality improvement interventions, and prevent substandard care and patient dissatisfaction. The approach we describe should be replicable in other agencies that handle large numbers of patient complaints or malpractice claims.

The legacy of the Cartwright report: "lest it happen again".

The 1987 Cartwright Report into events at New Zealand's National Women's Hospital catalysed sweeping changes to promote and protect patients' rights. A generation on, it is comfortable to believe that such sustained and deliberate violations of patient rights "couldn't happen here" and "couldn't happen now." And yet, contemporary examples beg a different truth. Three of Cartwright's messages hold an enduring relevance for health practitioners and patients: the need for patients to be respected as people; to be supported to make informed choices; and to have their voices heard, even when they whisper. These challenges cannot be met in isolation from broader determinants of patients' rights and will require social, technological, and cultural change in order to prevent another "unfortunate experiment."

Identification of doctors at risk of recurrent complaints: a national study of healthcare complaints in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the distribution of formal patient complaints across Australia's medical workforce and (2) to identify characteristics of doctors at high risk of incurring recurrent complaints. METHODS: We assembled a national sample of all 18 907 formal patient complaints filed against doctors with health service ombudsmen ('Commissions') in Australia over an 11-year period. We analysed the distribution of complaints among practicing doctors. We then used recurrent-event survival analysis to identify characteristics of doctors at high risk of recurrent complaints, and to estimate each individual doctor's risk of incurring future complaints. RESULTS: The distribution of complaints among doctors was highly skewed: 3% of Australia's medical workforce accounted for 49% of complaints and 1% accounted for a quarter of complaints. Short-term risks of recurrence varied significantly among doctors: there was a strong dose-response relationship with number of previous complaints and significant differences by doctor specialty and sex. At the practitioner level, risks varied widely, from doctors with <10% risk of further complaints within 2 years to doctors with >80% risk. CONCLUSIONS: A small group of doctors accounts for half of all patient complaints lodged with Australian Commissions. It is feasible to predict which doctors are at high risk of incurring more complaints in the near future. Widespread use of this approach to identify high-risk doctors and target quality improvement efforts coupled with effective interventions, could help reduce adverse events and patient dissatisfaction in health systems.

The heart of health care: parents' perspectives on patient safety.

Behind the wall of silence in health care are the unanswered questions of parents whose children experienced harm at the hands of their caregivers. In an industry where information and communication are crucial to quality, parents' voices often go unheard. Although that has begun slowly to change, providers could benefit from following the HEART model of service recovery, which includes hearing the concerns of patients and their families, empathizing with them, apologizing when care goes wrong, responding to parents' concerns with openness, and thanking the patient and family.

Legal disputes over informed consent for cosmetic procedures: a descriptive study of negligence claims and complaints in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Plastic surgeons and other doctors who perform cosmetic procedures face relatively high risks of malpractice claims and complaints. In particular, alleged problems with the consent process abound in this area, but little is known about the clinical circumstances of these cases. METHOD: We reviewed 481 malpractice claims and serious health care complaints resolved in Australia between 2002 and 2008 that alleged failures in the informed consent process for cosmetic and other procedures. We identified all "cases" involving cosmetic procedures and reviewed them in-depth. We calculated their frequency, and described the treatments, allegations, and outcomes involved. RESULTS: A total of 16% (77/481) of the legal disputes over informed consent involved cosmetic procedures. In 70% (54/77) of these cases, patients alleged that the doctor failed to disclose risks of a particular complication, in 39% patients claimed that potential lack of benefit was not explained, and in 26% patients allegations centred on the process by which consent was sought. Five treatment types-liposuction, breast augmentation, face/neck lifts, eye/brow lifts, and rhinoplasty/septoplasty-featured in 70% (54/77) of the cases. Scarring (30/77) and the need for reoperation (18/77) were among the most prevalent adverse health outcomes at issue. CONCLUSION: A mix of factors "supercharges" the informed consent process for cosmetic procedures. Doctors who deliver these procedures should take special care to canvas the risks and possible outcomes that matter most to patients.

When informed consent goes poorly: a descriptive study of medical negligence claims and patient complaints.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of medicolegal disputes over informed consent. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective review and analysis of negligence claims against doctors insured by Avant Mutual Group Limited and complaints lodged with the Office of the Health Services Commissioner of Victoria that alleged failures in the informed consent process and were adjudicated between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Case frequency (by medical specialty), type of allegation, type of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 481 cases alleged deficiencies in the informed consent process (218 of 1898 conciliated complaints [11.5%]; 263 of 7846 negligence claims [3.4%]). 57% of these cases were against surgeons. Plastic surgeons experienced dispute rates that were more than twice those of any other specialty or subspecialty group. 92% of cases (442/481) involved surgical procedures and 16% (77/481) involved cosmetic procedures. The primary allegation in 71% of cases was that the clinician failed to mention or properly explain risks of complications. Five treatment types - procedures on reproductive organs (12% of cases), procedures on facial features excluding eyes (12%), prescription medications (8%), eye surgery (7%) and breast surgery (7%) - accounted for 46% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: The typical dispute over informed consent involves an operation, often cosmetic, and allegations that a particular complication was not properly disclosed. With Australian courts now looking to patient preferences in setting legal standards of care for risk disclosure, medicolegal disputes provide valuable insights for targeting both quality improvement efforts and risk management activities.

Remedies sought and obtained in healthcare complaints.

In the wake of adverse events, injured patients and their families have a complex range of needs and wants. The tort system, even when operating at its best, will inevitably fall far short of addressing them. In Australia and New Zealand, government-run health complaints commissions take a more flexible and expansive approach to providing remedies for patients injured by or disgruntled with care. Unfortunately, survey research has shown that many patients in these systems are dissatisfied with their experience. We hypothesised that an important explanation for this dissatisfaction is an 'expectations gap'; discordance between what complainants want and what they eventually get out of the process. Analysing a sample of complaints relating to informed consent from the Commission in Victoria (Australia's second largest state, with 5.2 million residents), we found evidence of such a gap. One-third (59/189) of complainants who sought restoration received it; 1 in 5 complainants (17/101) who sought correction received assurances that changes had been or would be made to reduce the risk of others suffering a similar harm; and fewer than 1 in 10 (3/37) who sought sanctions saw steps taken to achieve this outcome initiated. We argue that bridging the expectations gap would go far toward improving patient satisfaction with complaints systems, and suggest several ways this might be done.

Why New Zealand must rapidly halve its greenhouse gas emissions.

New Zealand must commit to substantial decreases in its greenhouse gas emissions, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change on human health, both here and internationally. We have the fourth highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world. Based on the need to limit warming to 2 degrees C by 2100, our cumulative emissions, and our capability to mitigate, New Zealand should at least halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (i.e. a target of at least 40% less than 1990 levels). This target has a strong scientific basis, and if anything may be too lenient; reducing the risk of catastrophic climate change may require deeper cuts. Short-term economic costs of mitigation have been widely overstated in public debate. They must also be balanced by the far greater costs caused by inertia and the substantial health and social benefits that can be achieved by a low emissions society. Large emissions reductions are achievable if we mobilise New Zealand society and let technology follow the signal of a responsible target.

The power of apology.

In the aftermath of an adverse event, an apology can bring comfort to the patient, forgiveness to the health practitioner, and help restore trust to their relationship. According to the Health and Disability Commissioner: "The way a practitioner handles the situation at the outset can influence a patient's decision about what further action to take, and an appropriate apology may prevent the problem escalating into a complaint to HDC". Yet, for many health practitioners saying "I'm sorry" remains a difficult and uncomfortable thing to do. We can help to bring down this wall of silence by developing a clear understanding of the importance of apologies to patients and health practitioners; appreciating the difference between expressing empathy and accepting legal responsibility for an adverse outcome; knowing the key elements of a full apology and when they should be used; and supporting those who have the honesty and courage to say "I'm sorry" to patients who have been harmed while receiving healthcare.

Accountability sought by patients following adverse events from medical care: the New Zealand experience.

BACKGROUND: Unlike Canada's medical malpractice system, patients in New Zealand who are dissatisfied with the quality of their care may choose between 2 well-established medicolegal paths: one leads to monetary compensation and the other to nonmonetary forms of accountability. We compared the forms of accountability sought by patients and families in New Zealand who took different types of legal action following a medical injury. This study offers insights into the forms of accountability sought by injured patients and may help to inform tort-reform initiatives. METHODS: We reviewed compensation claims submitted to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), New Zealand's national no-fault insurer, following injuries associated with admission to a public hospital in 1998 (n = 582). We also reviewed complaint letters (n = 254) submitted to the national Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) that same year to determine the forms of accountability sought by injured patients. We used univariable and multivariable analyses to compare sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics of patients who sought nonmonetary forms of accountability with those of patients who claimed compensation. RESULTS: Of 154 injured patients whose complaints were sufficiently detailed to allow coding, 50% sought corrective action to prevent similar harm to future patients (45% system change, 6% review of involved clinician's competence) and 40% wanted more satisfying communication (34% explanation, 10% apology). The odds that patients would seek compensation were significantly increased if they were in their prime working years (aged between 30 and 64 years) (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-2.41) or had a permanent disability as a result of their injury (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14-2.70). When injuries resulted in death, the odds of a compensation claim to the ACC were about one-eighth those of a complaint to the HDC (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.23). INTERPRETATION: Injured patients who pursue medicolegal action seek various forms of accountability. Compensation is important to some, especially when economic losses are substantial (e.g., with injury during prime working years or severe nonfatal injuries). However, others have purely nonmonetary goals, and ensuring alternative options for redress would be an efficient and effective response to their needs.