Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct 1:8:529.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1479-z.

Complaint handling in healthcare: expectation gaps between physicians and the public; results of a survey study

R D Friele  1   2 , P M Reitsma  3 , J D de Jong  4
Affiliations

Complaint handling in healthcare: expectation gaps between physicians and the public; results of a survey study

R D Friele et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Background: Patients who submit complaints about the healthcare they have received are often dissatisfied with the response to their complaints. This is usually attributed to the failure of physicians to respond adequately to what complainants want, e.g. an apology or an explanation. However, expectations of complaint handling among the public may colour how they evaluate the way their own complaint is handled. This descriptive study assesses expectations of complaint handling in healthcare among the public and physicians. Negative public expectations and the gap between these expectations and those of physicians may explain patients' dissatisfaction with complaints procedures.

Methods: We held two surveys; one among physicians, using a panel of 3366 physicians (response rate 57 %, containing all kinds of physicians like GP's, medical specialist and physicians working in a nursing home) and one among the public, using the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel (n = 1422, response rate 68 %). We asked both panels identical questions about their expectations of how complaints are handled in healthcare. Differences in expectation scores between the public and the physicians were tested using non-parametric tests.

Results: The public have negative expectations about how complaints are handled. Physician's expectations are far more positive, demonstrating large expectation gaps between physicians and the public.

Conclusions: The large expectation gap between the public and physicians means that when they meet because of complaint, they are likely to start off with opposite expectations of the situation. This is no favourable condition for a positive outcome of a complaints procedure. The negative public preconceptions about the way their complaint will be handled will prove hard to change during the process of complaints handling. People tend to see what they thought would happen, almost inevitably leading to a negative judgement about how their complaint was handled.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Expectations of complaints handling: percentage of the public and physicians who agree or agree or totally agree
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Merriam-webster Dictionary [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complaint]. Accessed 29 Sept 2015.
    1. Friele RD, Sluijs EM, Legemaate J. Complaints handling in hospitals: an empirical study of discrepancies between patients’ expectations and their experiences. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:199. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-199. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bark P, Vincent C, Jones A, Savory J. Clinical complaints: a means of improving quality of care. Qual Health Care. 1994;3(3):123–132. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.3.123. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Friele RD, Sluijs EM. Patient expectations of fair complaint handling in hospitals: empirical data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:106. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-106. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Iedema R, Allen S, Britton K, Gallagher TH. What do patients and relatives know about problems and failures in care? BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(3):198–205. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000100. - DOI - PubMed