了解英国二级和三级医疗机构中医护人员对患者投诉的反应:使用理论领域框架进行系统回顾和行为分析。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Research Policy and Systems Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1186/s12961-024-01209-4
Vivi Antonopoulou, Carly Meyer, Paul Chadwick, Beckie Gibson, Falko F Sniehotta, Ivo Vlaev, Anna Vassova, Louis Goffe, Fabiana Lorencatto, Alison McKinlay, Angel Marie Chater
{"title":"了解英国二级和三级医疗机构中医护人员对患者投诉的反应:使用理论领域框架进行系统回顾和行为分析。","authors":"Vivi Antonopoulou, Carly Meyer, Paul Chadwick, Beckie Gibson, Falko F Sniehotta, Ivo Vlaev, Anna Vassova, Louis Goffe, Fabiana Lorencatto, Alison McKinlay, Angel Marie Chater","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01209-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The path of a complaint and patient satisfaction with complaint resolution is often dependent on the responses of healthcare professionals (HCPs). It is therefore important to understand the influences shaping HCP behaviour. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify the key actors, behaviours and factors influencing HCPs' responses to complaints, and (2) apply behavioural science frameworks to classify these influences and provide recommendations for more effective complaints handling behaviours.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review of UK published and unpublished (so-called grey literature) studies was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022301980). Five electronic databases [Scopus, MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC)] were searched up to September 2021. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting primary data, conducted in secondary and tertiary care, written in English and published between 2001 and 2021 (studies from primary care, mental health, forensic, paediatric or dental care services were excluded). Extracted data included study characteristics, participant quotations from qualitative studies, results from questionnaire and survey studies, case studies reported in commentaries and descriptions, and summaries of results from reports. Data were synthesized narratively using inductive thematic analysis, followed by deductive mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 22 articles and three reports met the inclusion criteria. A total of 8 actors, 22 behaviours and 24 influences on behaviour were found. Key factors influencing effective handling of complaints included HCPs' knowledge of procedures, communication skills and training, available time and resources, inherent contradictions within the role, role authority, HCPs' beliefs about their ability to handle complaints, beliefs about the value of complaints, managerial and peer support and organizational culture and emotions. Themes mapped onto nine TDF domains: knowledge, skills, environmental context and resources, social/professional role and identity, social influences, beliefs about capability, intentions and beliefs about consequences and emotions. Recommendations were generated using the Behaviour Change Wheel approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Through the application of behavioural science, we identified a wide range of individual, social/organizational and environmental influences on complaints handling. Our behavioural analysis informed recommendations for future intervention strategies, with particular emphasis on reframing and building on the positive aspects of complaints as an underutilized source of feedback at an individual and organizational level.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"137"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11443808/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding healthcare professionals' responses to patient complaints in secondary and tertiary care in the UK: A systematic review and behavioural analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework.\",\"authors\":\"Vivi Antonopoulou, Carly Meyer, Paul Chadwick, Beckie Gibson, Falko F Sniehotta, Ivo Vlaev, Anna Vassova, Louis Goffe, Fabiana Lorencatto, Alison McKinlay, Angel Marie Chater\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-024-01209-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The path of a complaint and patient satisfaction with complaint resolution is often dependent on the responses of healthcare professionals (HCPs). It is therefore important to understand the influences shaping HCP behaviour. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify the key actors, behaviours and factors influencing HCPs' responses to complaints, and (2) apply behavioural science frameworks to classify these influences and provide recommendations for more effective complaints handling behaviours.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review of UK published and unpublished (so-called grey literature) studies was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022301980). Five electronic databases [Scopus, MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC)] were searched up to September 2021. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting primary data, conducted in secondary and tertiary care, written in English and published between 2001 and 2021 (studies from primary care, mental health, forensic, paediatric or dental care services were excluded). Extracted data included study characteristics, participant quotations from qualitative studies, results from questionnaire and survey studies, case studies reported in commentaries and descriptions, and summaries of results from reports. Data were synthesized narratively using inductive thematic analysis, followed by deductive mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 22 articles and three reports met the inclusion criteria. A total of 8 actors, 22 behaviours and 24 influences on behaviour were found. Key factors influencing effective handling of complaints included HCPs' knowledge of procedures, communication skills and training, available time and resources, inherent contradictions within the role, role authority, HCPs' beliefs about their ability to handle complaints, beliefs about the value of complaints, managerial and peer support and organizational culture and emotions. Themes mapped onto nine TDF domains: knowledge, skills, environmental context and resources, social/professional role and identity, social influences, beliefs about capability, intentions and beliefs about consequences and emotions. Recommendations were generated using the Behaviour Change Wheel approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Through the application of behavioural science, we identified a wide range of individual, social/organizational and environmental influences on complaints handling. Our behavioural analysis informed recommendations for future intervention strategies, with particular emphasis on reframing and building on the positive aspects of complaints as an underutilized source of feedback at an individual and organizational level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11443808/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01209-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01209-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:投诉的途径和患者对投诉解决的满意度往往取决于医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)的反应。因此,了解影响医护人员行为的因素非常重要。本系统性综述旨在:(1)确定影响医护人员对投诉做出反应的关键行为者、行为和因素;(2)应用行为科学框架对这些影响因素进行分类,并为更有效的投诉处理行为提供建议:对英国已发表和未发表(所谓灰色文献)的研究进行了系统的文献综述(PROSPERO 注册:CRD42022301980)。检索了截至 2021 年 9 月的五个电子数据库[Scopus、MEDLINE/Ovid、Embase、护理与联合健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)和健康管理信息联合会(HMIC)]。资格标准包括报告原始数据、在二级和三级医疗机构进行、用英语撰写、2001 年至 2021 年间发表的研究(来自初级医疗、精神健康、法医、儿科或牙科医疗服务的研究除外)。提取的数据包括研究特点、定性研究中的参与者引文、问卷和调查研究的结果、评论和描述中的案例研究报告以及报告中的结果摘要。采用归纳式主题分析法对数据进行叙述性综合,然后根据理论领域框架(TDF)进行演绎映射:共有 22 篇文章和 3 份报告符合纳入标准。共发现了 8 种行为主体、22 种行为和 24 种行为影响因素。影响有效处理投诉的关键因素包括卫生保健人员的程序知识、沟通技巧和培训、可用时间和资源、角色内的内在矛盾、角色权威、卫生保健人员对其处理投诉能力的信念、对投诉价值的信念、管理和同行支持以及组织文化和情感。主题映射到九个 TDF 领域:知识、技能、环境背景和资源、社会/专业角色和身份、社会影响、对能力的信念、意图以及对后果和情感的信念。使用 "行为改变轮 "方法提出建议:通过应用行为科学,我们发现了个人、社会/组织和环境对投诉处理的广泛影响。我们的行为分析为未来的干预策略提供了建议,特别强调了投诉作为个人和组织层面未得到充分利用的反馈来源的积极方面的重塑和利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Understanding healthcare professionals' responses to patient complaints in secondary and tertiary care in the UK: A systematic review and behavioural analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Background: The path of a complaint and patient satisfaction with complaint resolution is often dependent on the responses of healthcare professionals (HCPs). It is therefore important to understand the influences shaping HCP behaviour. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify the key actors, behaviours and factors influencing HCPs' responses to complaints, and (2) apply behavioural science frameworks to classify these influences and provide recommendations for more effective complaints handling behaviours.

Methods: A systematic literature review of UK published and unpublished (so-called grey literature) studies was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022301980). Five electronic databases [Scopus, MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC)] were searched up to September 2021. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting primary data, conducted in secondary and tertiary care, written in English and published between 2001 and 2021 (studies from primary care, mental health, forensic, paediatric or dental care services were excluded). Extracted data included study characteristics, participant quotations from qualitative studies, results from questionnaire and survey studies, case studies reported in commentaries and descriptions, and summaries of results from reports. Data were synthesized narratively using inductive thematic analysis, followed by deductive mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results: In all, 22 articles and three reports met the inclusion criteria. A total of 8 actors, 22 behaviours and 24 influences on behaviour were found. Key factors influencing effective handling of complaints included HCPs' knowledge of procedures, communication skills and training, available time and resources, inherent contradictions within the role, role authority, HCPs' beliefs about their ability to handle complaints, beliefs about the value of complaints, managerial and peer support and organizational culture and emotions. Themes mapped onto nine TDF domains: knowledge, skills, environmental context and resources, social/professional role and identity, social influences, beliefs about capability, intentions and beliefs about consequences and emotions. Recommendations were generated using the Behaviour Change Wheel approach.

Conclusions: Through the application of behavioural science, we identified a wide range of individual, social/organizational and environmental influences on complaints handling. Our behavioural analysis informed recommendations for future intervention strategies, with particular emphasis on reframing and building on the positive aspects of complaints as an underutilized source of feedback at an individual and organizational level.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
期刊最新文献
The embedded research model: an answer to the research and evaluation needs of community service organizations? Implementation of national policies and interventions (WHO Best Buys) for non-communicable disease prevention and control in Ghana: a mixed methods analysis. Policy impact of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: global perspective and United Kingdom case study. Real-world data to improve organ and tissue donation policies: lessons learned from the tissue and organ donor epidemiology study. "All of these things interact, that's why it's such a wicked problem": Stakeholders' perspectives of what hinders low back pain care in Australia and how to improve it.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1