Using complaints from obstetric care for improving women's birth experiences - a cross sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Staff shortages and quality in obstetric care is a concern in most healthcare systems and a hot topic in the public debate that has centred on complaints about deficient care. However there has been a lack of empirical data to back the debate. The aim of this study was to analyse and describe complaints in obstetric care. Further, to compare the obstetric complaint pattern to complaints from women about other hospital services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool to code, analyse and extract contents of obstetric complaint cases in a region of Denmark between 2016 and 2021. We compared the obstetric complaint pattern to all other hospital complaint cases in the same period regarding female patients at a large University Hospital in a cross-sectional study. RESULTS: Complaints regarding obstetric care differed from women's complaints regarding other healthcare services. Women from obstetric care raised more problems per complaint, and tended to complain more about relational issues indicated by odds for complaints about staff shortage four times higher in the obstetric care group. Women from obstetric care had a lower proportion of compensation claims. CONCLUSION: Systematic complaint analysis acknowledged women's experience in obstetric care and may point to areas that potentially need further attention. Complaints from obstetric care show that women experience deficiencies related to relational problems like recognition and individualized support compared to complaints from women receiving other hospital healthcare services.

Health Care Complaints and Professional Legal Responsibility - A Cross-Country Comparative Review.

One approach to stimulating patient safety and health care quality is through holding health care professionals legally responsible for their performance. Law and health care variation across countries, however, makes it difficult to get an overview and make comparisons of the personal legal responsibility of health care providers. This article describes health care professional liability and complaint measures in some European countries (UK, The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark) and US. Countries all have established a public authority to assess complaints about health professional performance and opportunities for economic compensation. The assessment of health professional legal responsibility generally relies on comparisons to supposedly "objective" standards predominantly dictated by the health profession. In line with the aim of ensuring acceptable care for all, health ethics principles on justice, respect for patients' autonomy, and the duty to do good and prevent harm may provide an attractive supplement in the description of legal responsibility in the health professions.

Mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions: An integrative review.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The use of restrictive interventions is described as a violation of patients' rights and autonomy. It must only be used as a last resort to manage dangerous behaviour, to prevent or reduce the risk of mental health patients harming themselves or others. International mental health policy and legislation agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The results are ambiguous, as to which restrictive intervention is preferred over others, but there are tendencies towards the majority preferring observation, with mechanical restraint being the least preferred. To make the experience less intrusive and restrictive, certain factors are preferred, such as a more pleasant and humane seclusion room environment, staff communicating during the application and staff of same gender applying the intervention. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: When applying restrictive interventions, mental health professionals should consider environment, communication and duration factors that influence patient preferences, such as the opportunity to keep some personal items in the seclusion room, or, when using restraint, to communicate the reason and explain what is going to happen. More research is needed to clarify patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions and their views on which are the least restrictive. Preferably, agreement is needed on standard measures, and global use of the same definition of restrictive interventions. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The use of restrictive interventions is a violation of patients' rights that causes physical and psychological harm and which is a well-known challenge globally. Mental health law and legislative principles and experts agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be used. However, there is no consensus on what is the least restrictive alternative, especially from the patient perspective. AIM: To investigate the literature on mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions applied during admission to a psychiatric hospital. METHOD: An integrative review informed by the PRISMA statement and thematic analysis were undertaken. RESULTS: There were tendencies towards patients preferring observation and, for the majority, mechanical restraint was the least preferred restrictive intervention. Factors such as environment, communication and duration were found to influence patients' preferences. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of agreement on how best to measure patients' preferences and this complicates the choice of the least restrictive alternative. Nonetheless, our findings show that staff should consider environment, communication and duration when applying restrictive interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More research on restrictive interventions and the least restrictive alternative is warranted, but agreement is needed on standard measures, and a standard global definition of restrictive interventions.

Does systematic analysis of patient complaints and compensation cases at hospitals provide useful information to guide quality improvement? Experience from Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Patient complaints and compensation cases are analysed individually and do not allow for organisational learning. Systematic information on complaint patterns needs evidence-based measures. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) can systematically code and analyse complaints and compensation claims, but whether this information is useful for quality improvement is underexplored. We aim to explore if and how HCAT information is perceived useful to inform healthcare quality gaps. METHODS: To explore the HCAT's usefulness for quality improvement purposes, we used an iterative process. We accessed all complaints relating to a large university hospital. Trained HCAT raters systematically coded all cases, using the Danish version of HCAT. INTERVENTION: The intervention had four phases: (1) coding of cases, (2) education, (3) selection of HCAT analyses for dissemination, (4) 'dashboard' development and delivery of targeted HCAT reports. To study the interventions and phases, we used quantitative and qualitative approaches. The coding patterns were descriptively displayed on department and hospital level. The educational programme was monitored using passing rates, coding reliability checks and rater feedback. Online interviews recorded dissemination feedback. We used a phenomenological approach with thematised quotations from the interviews to analyse the usefulness of the information from cases coded. RESULTS: We coded 5217 complaint cases (11 056 complaint points). The average case coding time was 8.5 min (95% CI 8.2 to 8.7). All four raters passed the online test with >80% correct answers. Using rater feedback, we handled 25 cases of doubt. None affected the HCAT structure or categories. Interviews verified the usefulness of analyses after expert group dissemination. Three themes were important: 'overview of complaints', 'learning from complaints' and 'listening to the patients'. Stakeholders perceived the 'dashboard' development as highly relevant. CONCLUSION: Through the development process with several adjustments, stakeholders found the systematic approach useful for quality improvement. The hospital management evaluated the approach as promising and decided to test the approach in clinical practice.

Use of the least intrusive coercion at Danish psychiatric wards: A register-based cohort study of 131,632 first and subsequent coercive episodes within 35,812 admissions.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric legislation in Denmark implies a principle of using the least intrusive types of coercion first. The intrusiveness is not universally agreed upon. We examined the order in which coercive measures during admission were used, implying that the first used should be less intrusive than the following types. METHODS: For coercive episodes reported to the national administrative register for the period 2011-16, the order of 12 legal coercive interventions during each admission was examined. Comparing with mechanical restraint, the odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (95%CI) of being first or subsequent used types were estimated using conditioned (96,611 episodes) and unconditioned (131,632 episodes) logistic regression models, stratified on sex. RESULTS: Totally 17,796 patients aged 18+ were subjected to at least one coercive episode. The median time between admission and the first episode was 4 days in men and 6 for women. For females, involuntary detention, forced feeding, coercive treatment of somatic disorder, locking of doors and close observations in females were used before mechanical restraint, and forced follow-up, involuntary electro convulsive therapy (ECT), forced treatment, use of gloves and straps, physical restraint and forced intramuscular medication was used later. In men, only involuntary detention was used before mechanical restraint, while involuntary ECT, close observations, administration of drugs, use of gloves and straps, physical restraint and forced intramuscular medication was used after mechanical restraint. CONCLUSION: The order of used coercive measures is not consistent with the international ranking of the least intrusive types, especially in men and in younger adults.

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

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.

[Medication reconciliation].

The purpose of medicines reconciliation (MR) is to avoid medication errors through the complete and accurate transfer of information on patients' medicines during health care sector transitions. We review the rapidly expanding literature on MR showing a need for consensus on taxonomy and research into efficient ways to implement MR. Further, we describe quality improvement initiatives on MR in Denmark and challenge the, in our view, one-sided focus on information technology in MR.

Paranoid personality disorder and the schizophrenia spectrum-Where to draw the line?

By means of a case vignette, this study explores the clinical intersection between paranoid personality disorder and other schizophrenia-spectrum illness. Even though the patient described had paramount signs of a paranoid personality disorder and was diagnosed as such, psychopathological symptoms extended considerably beyond the common concept and diagnostic criteria of the disorder. Management strategies included psychopharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, yet psychosocial functioning permanently appeared defective. While there is a persistent need for an opportunity to distinguish the characteristic syndromal pattern of paranoid personality attributes, the case exemplifies the challenges associated with classifying some largely suspicious and distrustful eccentrics within the schizophrenia spectrum.