Complaints and litigation - Essay Example

Complaints and litigation Introduction A crucial element of governance is the ability to detect, analyze, and take advantage of relevant experience, including adverse events and service failures. Complaints are a way to identify aspects of the users of the service provided (Clare 2006). They can serve, as an early indicator of a system is not functioning effectively. Trend analysis of the appropriate factors, which prompted the complaint, may provide valuable information in areas where improvements might be needed Lonely (n. d). The complaints are relevant to those treated with courtesy and quickly and thoroughly. How a company handles complaints against itself indicates how flexible it is for patients and federal, it serves. Regulations governing the management of NHS exceptions followed an extensive public consultation and monitoring by the Department of Health and intended to attain a fundamental change in how to deal with complaints within the NHS. With this objective in mind, the regulations drafted are to allow health care providers the flexibility to adopt a truly patient-centered treatment of complaints. They create legal grounds on which to place the principles of exception handling robust promoted by various agencies, such as the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Health Services and once by the Healthcare Commission. The new provisions aimed at making the whole process of making a complaint easier, more user friendly and better adapted for the needs of people rather than one size fits all. They also note that the services of health and social care should routinely learn from complaints, feeding into service improvement, and, if possible inform the department services. Simple two-step process complaints, focusing on local resolution, and thereafter, if not resolved, an investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Ombudsman government health services or local, has replaced the previous three-step solving network, further consideration by the local health care Commission then referred to the ombudsman, if not resolved at an early stage. Under the system, an individual has the right to file a complaint regarding any aspect of the analysis of the NHS using the NHS complaints system. To use the system, an individual must normally be a patient or former patient of the practitioner or the institution concerned, although it is possible to protest on behalf of someone else. According to Clare (2006) if, an individual wants to protest on behalf of another person, hospital or application must agree that the individual is a qualified representative. Time for filing a complaint The individual should make your problem as soon as possible after the incident problem. The period for complaints is usually six months from the instance of the incident, or within six months, the person discover that the person has reason to complain but not more than 12 months after the event. However, if a hospital or practice is not aware of the complaint, the six-month period begins to run when they first know about it too long as it is within twelve months after the time the incident occurred. There is sensitivity to waive the time limit where it would be contrary to expect of the person to have complained in time, for example, because of pain or sadness. It must be meaningful to investigate the complaint. The financial compensation If the person seeks financial retribution for harm to health resulting from medical malpractice, the individual will need to obtain independent legal action. If the individual is looking for financial compensation, perhaps, lost their property, damaged goods or loss income, it would be helpful to ask the NHS complaints team how to complain as NHS Boards have the ability to give financial compensation. NHS complaints procedure Step One - Local Resolution If the person needs to place a complaint concerning any aspect of NHS system, an individual has to received or refused, the individuals goes to practice, or hospital concerned and request a copy of the complaints process. This is equal to GPs, dentist, hospitals, opticians, and any consideration given by the NHS. In all cases, the first step of the procedure is to create a complaint with the practitioner or agency. This is the first phase of the local resolution. A health center can have a large staff member designated as chief complaints. A little practice wills probably not such a person, but all NHS practices have a mechanism, and someone who is responsible. In most instances, the matter solved at this stage. If the claim is for primary provision services, the complaints personnel can arrange for an impartial conciliator for this helps solve the complaint. A third party mediator or conciliator might also be able to help solve complaints concerning other type’s services of NHS. Step Two - referral to the Ombudsman If your complaint is not resolved by local resolution, the individual can transfer the case to the Ombudsman for public services or seek judicial review. An individual must make their complaint to the Ombudsman within one year from what the individual is complaining about happened between the times the individual found out concerning it. If there exist exceptional conditions, the Ombudsman might be able to increase the deadline. Judicial It may be possible to test the final decision on your complaint seeking a judicial review. Judicial review is a technique that allows a court of justice to reconsider decisions arrived at by public bodies. The individual required to consult a lawyer if the person wants to apply for judicial review. The committee also wants the health care providers to be a bit open and stick to a duty of candor, which requires them to disseminate information on the complaints they receive and the progress they make. Only a fraction of people who have had various examinations under the old system can make the Ombudsman to investigate. When the analysis shows clear evidence of mismanagement or prejudice, we examine whether we can resolve the situation quickly and expeditiously through the participation, rather than a full investigation. The procedure for handling complaints of the NHS is a difficult question. We welcome the report's recommendation of the current system design and capacity, the importance on listening to individuals and support advocacy of the issue and the committee's request for greater emphasis on data relating to complaints and learning from complaints. Revised plans, we discovered last week in response to the Forum NHS independent future, will safeguard the future of the NHS and giving patients the heart of the health service. According to plans, individuals will have a bolder voice and the NHS responsible quality of care they provide to patients. In addition, Local Health Observatory supports the opinions and experiences of individuals, helping to attain improvements in the level of health care services and social. Principles The provision of health care and social understanding is an increasingly complex inter-agency responsibility. Service users, patients, their careers, their friends, and relatives cannot expect to have an understanding depth of these responsibilities and should not have to fight their way through them, with their comments considered. This method intended to ensure that the individuals’ comments about a service provided jointly or involves services provided by more than one group processed seamlessly, quickly and clearly through a single coordinated system. Complainants receive advice and support they need to get experience as straightforward as it can be. Accessible To be accessible, your complaint procedure must be clear, but it is not enough to show notices and leaflets pointing a way to complain. To be truly accessible, potential complainants need different access points and, more importantly, a belief they have heard, that their opinions considered, and they cannot be disregarded against for expressing their concerns. The individuals must also assume that it is worth, for example, they must be convinced that their complaint in a thorough and impartial investigation and there will be a result. Access should be restrained by talking to a staff member directly, by forwarding an email or a letter, or by completing an online form or on paper. It helps if your brochures and website contains some suggestions on what information to involve in a complaint - what occurred, when, where, or the person concerned, what the result was, what the complainant wants the person to do, etc. the individual must also define what they can expect to happen, including problems of confidentiality and willingness to share information. Consideration must also be accorded to the accessibility for people with learning difficulties or language. Written submissions must be in the main dialects used by the local community and the person should have easy to read and print versions greater for patients who have difficulty understanding. On a more subtle, an atmosphere of openness and respect, with employees trained to respond to the signs of anger or disapproval and expressing a willingness to listen are crucial aspects of accessibility. Flexible and responsive Adapt your complaints in certain circumstances. The amount of time and effort the person spends on the investigation and resolve the complaint must be proportionate to its severity. According to Gregory (2000, p.80), it is essential to conduct a risk assessment to help assess the severity of a complaint. Some individuals take more time to solve issues than others do and schedule discussed and agreed with the applicant at the beginning, if possible. Newsletter signoff should include all issues raised and include a full written report in a clear, jargon-free style. An apology should be given with an explanation of what the person does to fix things. Although the survey shows that the complaint as unfounded, the complainant be thanked for giving the individual the opportunity to deal with the issue and make any misunderstandings. The letter should also provide details of the ombudsman and advocacy. Lessons learned Compliments, comments, concerns, or complaints - if they are minor problems treated on site or grave complaints requiring inquiry and an official response should be made and used to facilitate service improvement. It is acceptable practice to review connect your complaints regularly to see if the trends and themes have emerged over time, which represent a recurring problem or chronic condition that must be addressed. All comments must be discussed at the preparatory meetings. Some questions may trigger changes fast, but others may require research to determine the underlying causes of a problem. There are two methods to deal with the situation, one of the significant events or on an analysis of causes. Detailed guidance on the conduct of audition momentous events or root because analysis can be found usefully applied in the investigation of a complaint. Coordinated manipulation Now that all NHS organizations, including voluntary sector organizations and independent contract and social services in England governed by the same legislation, coordinated complaints should be easier, to obtain than it was in the past. When the person receives a complaint that involves other organizations, the person should, with the approval of the plaintiff’s complaint and copy your letter of acceptance to the organizations concerned. They will begin their own investigations, but may want to share files between your to facilitate a coordinated approach. If this is the case, the person must act within the legal and ethical framework governing the use of personal information. Your Pct may have a protocol inter-agency sharing of information that should be followed. The most effective way to coordinate exception handling is for the agencies involved to decide which of them will assume the lead position. In addition, they should embrace accountability for making sure that the complaints remains on track, whilst keeping the complainant informed of progress. An effective way of achieving this coordination would be able to share complaints personnel in partnership with any other organizations in your community. Otherwise, the person can approach your Pct and ask them if they would coordinate on your behalf. Use of NHS in police complains Clarity and consistent Police complaint system should expand characteristic processes for replying to complaint referrals. They should be designed to meet complainants’ needs but also to cope with unusual and complex cases. Complainants should be awarded a clear clarification of the criteria for accepting complaints and a systematic guide to the way of addressing the matter; including what service standards they can expect in terms of speed, detail and staff behavior. Clarity regarding what can be attained and what is not possible is vital to a complainant’s understanding of the scheme’s role. If the scheme cannot help someone, wherever possible that person should be given information about alternatives. It is especially beneficial to make it clear when matters brought to a conclusion. A final letter or the report should set out a synopsis of the facts taken into account, describe the result of the review and, where appropriate, the reasons for decisions reached. It should also direct the complainant to any further help he, or she can get if the communication received is not fully understood, or there is dissatisfaction with the service or outcome. This should include how to make representations against a decision. Consistency must not equal complacency. The scheme’s service should be regularly reviewed in the light of feedback from complainants and organizations within its remit, to ensure that it continues to meet changing demands and circumstances. Schemes should continue to look for improvements in service provision and be prepared to learn from and assist others in membership. Accessibility Schemes should constitute realizable and usable means of seeking independent compensation. Therefore, the individuals who need to utilize them, they know of, free to use, open and attainable. Methods of assessing schemes will differ from one scheme to another. For example, whilst complainants or their personal representatives can make most referrals. Members of Parliament or other authorized representatives must make some referrals. However, referrals made it are essential that people have the knowledge they require to be able to attain this step within the required period and that the organization complained about does not filter access. An advantage that schemes offer a complainant in terms of accessibility is that the services available to them and charged. This means that individuals do not need to bother about whether they can afford to have their complaints properly considered, in order to get an independent view of what has happened. It is essential to provide it as easy as possible for complainants to access schemes. Schemes should develop standard methods of responding to complainants, which will be appropriate in most situations, and support consistency. That should not prevent them from recognizing and responding to the individual and unusual needs of some potential complainants or responding to contact in a proportionate manner Nicola (2008). Whilst accessibility to schemes will differ depending on size, location, and remit, complainants gave as many ways of contacting schemes and referring their complaints as is practically possible within legislative and other constraints. Most should be able to do so by e-mail, letter, or telephone. It might also be helpful to consider other methods of communication commonly used by age or social groups, such as SMS text messaging. Although most schemes welcome contact by telephone, it should be borne in mind that a portion of individuals might deem it difficult to make phone calls during standard office hours. Therefore, it may be helpful to offer out-of-hours contact or make other arrangements for people to complain Lonely (n. d). Where it is practicable, some systems might be able to make room for complainants to do so face to face. Schemes should regularly check how easy complainants find it to access their services, for example, by issuing customer satisfaction surveys and consulting focus groups flexibility. While there are other general principles for proper complaint handling applied firmly, there should also be some flexibility in the process of dealing with complaints. As such, flexibility is a mechanism in its own way. The belief is that complaint-handling methods designed to provide a variety of options that can reply to the varied requirements of complainants. However, it is acceptable that not all systems will require, or be capable to offer all plausible options. At all levels during a systems’ complaint-handling method, there should be sufficient flexibility to allow every complainant to consider as being handled and complaint dealt with on its own merits. Initial contact and expressing the complaint, Schemes should use a wide range of option for making the public aware of the existence. Many potential complainants may not be sure if a system can deal with their problems. They should be able to take initial contact to clarify this in a number of ways, entailing telephone, letter, fax, or e-mail. For most schemes, the complainant personally, or by anyone authorized by them, including a legal representative, can usually raise a complaint. However, in some cases, referral must be. Options for resolution, most complaints referred to a scheme after an in-house complaint-handling procedure has failed to resolve a dispute. It is necessary to build into the scheme’s process, opportunities for early resolution. This might be an attempt to attain an agreement by mediation or conciliation before investigation begins or for settlement achieved at any stage of an investigation and before completion. Complainants come to schemes for a number of reasons and may seek redress of different kinds. For example, some complainants are seeking an explanation of what has happened in their case and why, and an acknowledgement of being treated badly Gregory (2000). Others are seeking financial compensation. It is noteworthy that schemes have authority to offer a range of redress options for seeking resolution of a dispute. These should entail an apology from the organization to the complainant, and remedial action by the organization and / or financial redress for the complainant. Resolution of an issue may entail a collection of any of these options, together with any other that may be particular to that dispute. In some cases, a scheme will be unable to assist complainants with redress itself, but it should do what it can to point complainants in the direction of others who can help. Efficiency A well-run organization should be effective in what it does; efficient in how it does it and represents proper value for money. These schemes are no exception. Efficiency is an essential determinant of a complainant’s view of how proper his or her complaint taken care of. Alongside the level of an inquiry and its results, the efficiency of an action will be essential both to the individual complaining and to the organization complained about. Complainants, the organizations within a scheme’s remit and other stakeholders will consider its efficiency in arriving at their own perception of the value and quality of the system. To be effective and have credibility in the eyes of its stakeholders, a scheme must have a clear remit, demonstrable independence, and authority, be evidently knowledgeable about its work and have adequate powers. A scheme that has considerable internal planning processes, including a published set of values, mission statement, clear objectives, and in larger schemes, a business plan, performance, and risk management processes, is more likely to be, and seen to be, consistent and rigorous in its approach to its mandate. The process considerations of each case are considered on their own. Proportionality In dealing with a complaint, all schemes faced with options in the methods to apply, the materials to devote to the assignment and, if proper, the specific form of compensation to consider. All should be in proportion. Nicola (2008) states that proportionality means an evaluation of a complaint and the response to it that incorporates into account the magnitude of the matter, and the effect it has placed on the complainant. Other complaints may be conversely straightforward and the speculated consequences of the mistake minor. Others may be extremely complicated, with alleged shortcomings causing injustice or problems affecting not only the individual complaining but also others. Measures need to be in operation to facilitate fairness of handling, while recognizing the need to tailor resources to the complaint. The depth of the investigation and the time taken should be proportional to the seriousness of the alleged failure. Redress should reflect the maladministration that has occurred, and take account of the hardship or injustice suffered, as a result. The standard or quality of evidence and investigation should remain constant. In addition, procedures should be in place to assure quality and audit the process. Proportionality of approach represents a better outcome for a complainant and the organization concerned if problems that arise can be resolved as quickly as possible. Reference list Clare, X 2006, Nhs Complaints Managers, Universal-Publishers. Contemporary issues in law, Volume 3, 1998, Cavendish Publishing. Great Britain Parliament: House of Commons: constitutional Affairs committee 2006, Compensation Culture. NHS Redress Bill, The Stationery Office. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Health Committee 2011, Complaints and litigation, The Stationery Office. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Health Committee, 2007, Patient and public involvement in the NHS, The Stationery Office. Gregory, R & Giddings, P 2000, Righting wrongs: The Ombudsman in six continents, Routledge. Lonely, D & James, R , Administrative Justice: Central Issues in Uk And European Administrative Law, Routledge. Nicola C, Kirsty F, & Paul C 2008, Essential Guide to Generic Skills, Wiley publishers. Read More