Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research article

Process-related factors associated with disciplinary board decisions

Authors: Søren Birkeland, Rene dePont Christensen, Niels Damsbo, Jakob Kragstrup

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In most health care systems disciplinary boards have been organised in order to process patients’ complaints about health professionals. Although, the safe-guarding of the legal rights of the involved parties is a crucial concern, there is limited knowledge about what role the complaint process plays with regard to board decision outcomes. Using complaint cases towards general practitioners, the aim of this study was to identify what process factors are statistically associated with disciplinary actions as seen from the party of the complainant and the defendant general practitioner, respectively.

Methods

Danish Patient Complaints Board decisions concerning general practitioners completed in 2007 were examined. Information on process factors was extracted from the case files and included complaint delay, complainant’s lawyer involvement, the number of general practitioners involved, event duration, expert witness involvement, case management duration and decision outcome (discipline or no discipline). Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed on compound case decisions eventually involving more general practitioners (as seen from the complainant’s side) and on separated decisions (as seen from the defendant general practitioner’s side).

Results

From the general practitioner’s side, when the number of general practitioners involved in a complaint case increased, odds of being disciplined significantly decreased (OR=0.661 per additional general practitioner involved, p<0.001). Contrarily, from the complainant’s side, no association could be detected between complaining against a plurality of general practitioners and the odds of at least one general practitioner being disciplined. From both sides, longer case management duration was associated with higher odds of discipline (OR=1.038 per additional month, p=0.010). No association could be demonstrated with regard to complaint delay, lawyer involvement, event duration, or expert witness involvement. There was lawyer involvement in 5% of cases and expert witness involvement in 92% of cases. The mean complaint delay was 3 months and 18 days and the mean case management duration was 14 months and 7 days.

Conclusions

Certain complaint process factors might be statistically associated with decision outcomes. However, the impact diverges as seen from the different parties. Future studies are merited in order to uncover the judicial mechanisms lying behind.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sundhedsvæsenets Patientklagenævn: Statistical information. 2007, Copenhagen: Danish Patient Complaints Board Sundhedsvæsenets Patientklagenævn: Statistical information. 2007, Copenhagen: Danish Patient Complaints Board
2.
go back to reference Lens P, van der Wal G: A study of dysfunction in specialists. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1994, 138: 1127-1131.PubMed Lens P, van der Wal G: A study of dysfunction in specialists. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1994, 138: 1127-1131.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Hout E: The Dutch disciplinary system for health care: an empirical study [Thesis]. 2006, The Netherlands: EMGO Institute, Febodruk b.v. Enschede Hout E: The Dutch disciplinary system for health care: an empirical study [Thesis]. 2006, The Netherlands: EMGO Institute, Febodruk b.v. Enschede
4.
go back to reference Hagihara A, Nishi M, Abe E, Nobutomo K: The structure of medical malpractice decision-making in japan. J Law Med. 2003, 11: 162-184.PubMed Hagihara A, Nishi M, Abe E, Nobutomo K: The structure of medical malpractice decision-making in japan. J Law Med. 2003, 11: 162-184.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Moniz DM: The legal danger of written protocols and standards of practice. Nurse Pract. 1992, 17: 58-60. 10.1097/00006205-199209000-00015.CrossRefPubMed Moniz DM: The legal danger of written protocols and standards of practice. Nurse Pract. 1992, 17: 58-60. 10.1097/00006205-199209000-00015.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Guidelines for the physician expert witness. American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1990, 113: 789. Guidelines for the physician expert witness. American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1990, 113: 789.
7.
go back to reference Expert witness guidelines for the specialty of emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2010, 56: 449-450. Expert witness guidelines for the specialty of emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2010, 56: 449-450.
8.
go back to reference Hout E, Friele R, Legemaate J: The citizen as plaintiff in disciplinary procedures, lack of complaints possibly due to poor knowledge of the disciplinary system for health care. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009, 153: A548.PubMed Hout E, Friele R, Legemaate J: The citizen as plaintiff in disciplinary procedures, lack of complaints possibly due to poor knowledge of the disciplinary system for health care. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009, 153: A548.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Hout FA, Cuperus-Bosma JM, de Peuter OR, Hubben JH, van der Wal G: No improvement of disciplinary jurisprudence since the implementation of the individual health care professions Act (IHCP Act). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004, 148: 135-139.PubMed Hout FA, Cuperus-Bosma JM, de Peuter OR, Hubben JH, van der Wal G: No improvement of disciplinary jurisprudence since the implementation of the individual health care professions Act (IHCP Act). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004, 148: 135-139.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Process-related factors associated with disciplinary board decisions
Authors
Søren Birkeland
Rene dePont Christensen
Niels Damsbo
Jakob Kragstrup
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Health Services Research 1/2013 Go to the issue