The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a systematic review and coding taxonomy
Open accessAbstract
Background: Patient complaints have been identified as a valuable resource for monitoring and improving patient safety. This article critically reviews the literature on patient complaints, and synthesises the research findings to develop a coding taxonomy for analysing patient complaints. Methods: The PubMed, Science Direct and Medline databases were systematically investigated to identify patient complaint research studies. Publications were included if they reported primary quantitative data on the content of patient-initiated complaints. Data were extracted and synthesised on (1) basic study characteristics; (2) methodological details; and (3) the issues patients complained about. Results: 59 studies, reporting 88 069 patient complaints, were included. Patient complaint coding methodologies varied considerably (eg, in attributing single or multiple causes to complaints). In total, 113 551 issues were found to underlie the patient complaints. These were analysed using 205 different analytical codes which when combined represented 29 subcategories of complaint issue. The most common issues complained about were ‘treatment’ (15.6%) and ‘communication’ (13.7%). To develop a patient complaint coding taxonomy, the subcategories were thematically grouped into seven categories, and then three conceptually distinct domains. The first domain related to complaints on the safety and quality of clinical care (representing 33.7% of complaint issues), the second to the management of healthcare organisations (35.1%) and the third to problems in healthcare staff–patient relationships (29.1%). Conclusions: Rigorous analyses of patient complaints will help to identify problems in patient safety. To achieve this, it is necessary to standardise how patient complaints are analysed and interpreted. Through synthesising data from 59 patient complaint studies, we propose a coding taxonomy for supporting future research and practice in the analysis of patient complaint data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
A TYPOLOGY OF DEVIANT WORKPLACE BEHAVIORS: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING STUDY.
ROBINSON, S. L., & BENNETT, R. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256693 · Cited by 3,393
The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review
de Vries, E. N., Ramrattan, M. A., Smorenburg, S. M., Gouma, D. J., & Boermeester, M. A. (2008) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.023622 · Cited by 1,784
Ferlie, E. B., & Shortell, S. M. (2001) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00206 · Cited by 1,335
Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals
Gawande, A. A., Zinner, M. J., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A. (2003) · Surgery · doi:10.1067/msy.2003.169 · Cited by 1,082
Martin, P. (2013) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.05.010 · Cited by 681
Burnout in organizational settings.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984) · Cited by 664
Cited by
Speaking up to prevent harm: A systematic review of the safety voice literature
Noort, M. C., Reader, T. W., & Gillespie, A. (2019) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.039 · Cited by 141
Self-citationWalsh, C., Lydon, S., O’Dowd, E., & O’Connor, P. (2020) · Developmental Neurorehabilitation · doi:10.1080/17518423.2020.1716868 · Cited by 107
Rahimi, H., Bahmaei, J., Shojaei, P., Kavosi, Z., & Khavasi, M. (2018) · Shiraz E-Medical Journal · doi:10.5812/semj.64056 · Cited by 31
Yong, L. P. X., Tung, J. Y. M., Lee, Z. Y., Kuan, W. S., & Chua, M. T. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/56413 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Reader, T. W., Gillespie, A., & Roberts, J.
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-05-29
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 678-689
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W2143261507
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a systematic review and coding taxonomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002437
- The paper
- Reader, T. W., Gillespie, A., & Roberts, J. (2014). Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a systematic review and coding taxonomy. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002437
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.