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
. 2025 Dec 15;35(1):30-42.
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017213.

Patient-reported harm from NHS treatment or care, or the lack of access to care: a cross-sectional survey of general population prevalence, impact and responses

Affiliations

Patient-reported harm from NHS treatment or care, or the lack of access to care: a cross-sectional survey of general population prevalence, impact and responses

Helen Crocker et al. BMJ Qual Saf. .

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this article is to provide an estimate of the proportion of the general public reporting healthcare-related harm in Great Britain, its location, impact, responses post-harm and desired reactions from healthcare providers.

Design: We used a cross-sectional survey, using quota sampling.

Setting: This research was conducted in Great Britain.

Participants: The survey had 10 064 participants (weighted analysis).

Results: In our survey 9.7% participants reported harm caused by the National Health Service (NHS) in the last 3 years through treatment or care (6.2%) or the lack of access to care (3.5%). The main location where the harm first occurred was hospitals. A total of 37.6% of participants reported a moderate impact and 44.8% a severe impact of harm. The most common response to harm was to share their experience with others (67.1%). Almost 60% sought professional advice and support, with 11.6% contacting the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS). Only 17% submitted a formal complaint, and 2.1% made a claim for financial compensation. People wanted treatment or care to redress the harm (44.4%) and an explanation (34.8%). Two-thirds of those making a complaint felt it was not handled well and approximately half were satisfied with PALS. Experiences and responses differed according to sex and age (eg, women reported more harm). People with long-term illness or disability, those in lower social grades, and people in other disadvantaged groups reported higher rates and more severe impact of harm.

Conclusions: We found that 9.7% of the British general population reported harm by the NHS, a higher rate than reported in two previous surveys. Our study used a broader and more inclusive definition of harm and was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, making comparison to previous surveys challenging. People responded to harm in different ways, such as sharing experiences with others and seeking professional advice and support. Mostly, people who were harmed wanted help to redress the harm or to gain access to the care needed. Low satisfaction with PALS and complaints services may reflect that these services do not always deliver the required support. There is a need to better understand the patient perspective following harm and for further consideration of what a person-centred approach to resolution and recovery might look like.

Keywords: Health policy; Health services research; Patient Safety; Patient-centred care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: · funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) for the study (all authors)· MP, HC, DC, CG, RF, CV and HH are part-funded by an NIHR Policy Research Unit on Quality Safety and Outcomes (2019-2023)· CV has received consulting fees by RSM UK Healthcare, and honoraria from the Karolinska Institute and other universities.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Main factors associated with experiences of harm and responses.

References

    1. Panagioti M, Khan K, Keers RN, et al. Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;366:l4185. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4185. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Slawomirski L, Klazinga N. The economics of patient safety: from analysis to action. paris: the organisation for economic co-operation and development. 2020. [8-Apr-2024]. http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Economics-of-Patient-Safety-Oc... Available. Accessed.
    1. Vincent C. Understanding and responding to adverse events. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1051–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr020760. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Prentice JC, Bell SK, Thomas EJ, et al. Association of open communication and the emotional and behavioural impact of medical error on patients and families: state-wide cross-sectional survey. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:883–94. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010367. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hogan H, Olsen S, Scobie S, et al. What can we learn about patient safety from information sources within an acute hospital: a step on the ladder of integrated risk management? Qual Saf Health Care . 2008;17:209–15. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.020008. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources