Characteristics of complaints resulting in disciplinary actions against Danish GPs

Abstract

Objective: The risk of being disciplined in connection with a complaint case causes distress to most general practitioners. The present study examined the characteristics of complaint cases resulting in disciplinary action.

Material and methods: The Danish Patients' Complaints Board's decisions concerning general practice in 2007 were examined. Information on the motives for complaining, as well as patient and general practitioner characteristics, was extracted and the association with case outcome (disciplinary or no disciplinary action) was analysed. Variables included complaint motives, patient gender and age, urgency of illness, cancer diagnosis, healthcare settings (daytime or out-of-hours services), and general practitioner gender and professional seniority.

Results: Cases where the complaint motives involved a wish for placement of responsibility (OR = 2.35, p = 0.01) or a wish for a review of the general practitioner's competence (OR = 1.95, p = 0.02) were associated with increased odds of the general practitioner being disciplined. The odds of discipline decreased when the complaint was motivated by a feeling of being devalued (OR = 0.39, p = 0.02) or a request for an explanation (OR = 0.46, p = 0.01). With regard to patient and general practitioner characteristics, higher general practitioner professional seniority was associated with increased odds of discipline (OR = 1.97 per 20 additional years of professional seniority, p = 0.01). None of the other characteristics was statistically significantly associated with discipline in the multiple logistic regression model.

Conclusion: Complaint motives and professional seniority were associated with decision outcomes. Further research is needed on the impact of professional seniority on performance.