Clinical Risk > Volume 15, Number 4 > Pp. 146-150

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Table 2 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Giles, S. J Articles by Cook, G. A Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Complaints resolution

An in-depth analysis of complaints in an orthopaedic department in the NHS

Sally J Giles, Michael Morris and Gary A Cook

Email: sj_giles{at}yahoo.com

Objective: To undertake an in-depth analysis of all complaints over a 12-month period in an orthopaedic department in the NHS.

Setting: Department of Orthopaedics in a UK NHS Trust.

Methods: Sixteen complaints files and associated patient case-notes were retrospectively reviewed by an independent consultant orthopaedic surgeon and members of the research team.

Results: There were some common themes in the adverse events reported. For example, failure to obtain adequately informed consent and lack of information given to patients were the most common adverse events that were identified by the review process. There were 36 adverse events/complications in the sample, 30 were adverse events and six were complications. Half of the complaints reviewed (18/36) related directly to adverse events. The majority of the adverse events that were identified by this study and review of complaints (27/36) were covered by the adverse event list and should have triggered an incident report.

Conclusion: Adverse events are not being acknowledged and there is a need for more openness with patients. As such, a larger study is needed to explore the extent of these issues.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?