Importance of GP contact on readmission rate following psychiatric acute care: A Danish Nationwide study.

Insufficient acute psychiatric care substantially impacts patient well-being and healthcare quality. Early readmissions after discharge from psychiatric care are common, and preventing these is important for the patients as well as appropriate resource allocation. The relationship between post-discharge general practitioner (GP) contact and readmission rates remains to be explored, as does the association between pre-hospital GP contact and post-discharge engagement. AIM: This study examines post-discharge GP contact and its association with outpatient revisits and inpatient readmissions among unplanned psychiatric hospital contacts, including the impact of pre-visit GP contact on post-discharge care within 14 days. METHODS: Utilizing data from the Danish healthcare system (2019-2023), unplanned psychiatric hospital contacts and subsequent 14-day GP encounters were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 298,085 unplanned psychiatric hospital contacts, 12.6% had a 14-day revisit as an outpatient and 13.6% had a 14-day readmission as an inpatient. During regular business hours, GP contact was associated with a decreased risk of unplanned outpatient revisits (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.44-0.47) and inpatient readmissions (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.41-0.44). Similarly, utilizing GP on-call services was linked to a reduced risk of unplanned revisits (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and readmissions (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.87). Having a GP contact within two days before an unplanned psychiatric hospital contact increased the likelihood of having a GP contact within 14 days post-discharge. CONCLUSION: Post-discharge GP encounters were associated with lower rates of 14-day outpatient revisits and inpatient readmissions following unplanned psychiatric hospital contacts. GP contact before psychiatric hospital contact enhances attendance at post-discharge appointments, suggesting a potential efficacy of promoting GP appointments for mental health care.

Mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions: An integrative review.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The use of restrictive interventions is described as a violation of patients' rights and autonomy. It must only be used as a last resort to manage dangerous behaviour, to prevent or reduce the risk of mental health patients harming themselves or others. International mental health policy and legislation agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The results are ambiguous, as to which restrictive intervention is preferred over others, but there are tendencies towards the majority preferring observation, with mechanical restraint being the least preferred. To make the experience less intrusive and restrictive, certain factors are preferred, such as a more pleasant and humane seclusion room environment, staff communicating during the application and staff of same gender applying the intervention. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: When applying restrictive interventions, mental health professionals should consider environment, communication and duration factors that influence patient preferences, such as the opportunity to keep some personal items in the seclusion room, or, when using restraint, to communicate the reason and explain what is going to happen. More research is needed to clarify patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions and their views on which are the least restrictive. Preferably, agreement is needed on standard measures, and global use of the same definition of restrictive interventions. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The use of restrictive interventions is a violation of patients' rights that causes physical and psychological harm and which is a well-known challenge globally. Mental health law and legislative principles and experts agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be used. However, there is no consensus on what is the least restrictive alternative, especially from the patient perspective. AIM: To investigate the literature on mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions applied during admission to a psychiatric hospital. METHOD: An integrative review informed by the PRISMA statement and thematic analysis were undertaken. RESULTS: There were tendencies towards patients preferring observation and, for the majority, mechanical restraint was the least preferred restrictive intervention. Factors such as environment, communication and duration were found to influence patients' preferences. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of agreement on how best to measure patients' preferences and this complicates the choice of the least restrictive alternative. Nonetheless, our findings show that staff should consider environment, communication and duration when applying restrictive interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More research on restrictive interventions and the least restrictive alternative is warranted, but agreement is needed on standard measures, and a standard global definition of restrictive interventions.

Abolition of coercion in mental health services - A European survey of feasibility.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Council of Europe agreed to urge member states to take steps toward total abolition of psychiatric coercive measures. AIMS: To test if this aspiration is perceived as realistic and what the alternative would be in the event of a total abolition, we surveyed members of the European FOSTREN network of mental health practitioners and researchers, which is specifically dedicated to exchanging knowledge on reducing psychiatric coercion to its minimum. METHODS: Web-based survey. Categorical responses were analyzed using frequencies, and free text responses were analyzed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, out of 167 invitations to FOSTREN network members, 76 responded to the survey (Response Rate 45.5%). A minority (31%) of participating experts dedicated to the reduction of psychiatric coercive measures believed a total abolition to be an achievable goal. A commonly held belief was that total abolition is not achievable because mental health disorders are difficult to treat and may cause violence, necessitating coercion, and there is a need to protect the involved persons from harm. Those responding that complete abolition is achievable argued that the consequences of coercion outweigh any gains and indicated that use of advance directives are sufficient as alternatives to coercion. CONCLUSION: Of a European group of experts specifically dedicated to the reduction of psychiatric coercion who participated in this questionnaire study, a minority believed a total abolition be an achievable goal. The study adds to the empirical evidence of the feasibility of the aspiration to totally abolish involuntary measures in the mental health services from the perspective of experts.

Associations between knowledge of health issues and health care satisfaction and propensity to complain: a cross-sectional survey of adult men in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate associations between knowledge of health issues and healthcare satisfaction and propensity to complain including the association between knowledge and greater patient involvement. DESIGN: The present study is a secondary analysis of a larger cross-sectional case vignette survey. SETTING: Survey conducted in adult Danish men. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 6755 men aged 45-70 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants responded to a survey with scenarios illustrating prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and different information provision. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using Likert scales (scored 1-5), participants rated their satisfaction with the care described and their inclination to complain and responded to a short quiz (scored 0-3) assessing their knowledge about the PSA test. RESULTS: Satisfaction with healthcare increased with better quiz performance (Likert difference 0.13 (95% CI .07 to 0.20), p <0.001, totally correct vs totally incorrect responders) and correspondingly, the desire to complain significantly decreased (Likert difference -0.34 (95% CI 0.40 to -0.27), p <0.001). Respondents with higher education performed better (mean quiz score difference 0.59 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.67), p <0.001, most educated vs least educated). Responders who received information about the PSA test generally performed better (quiz score difference 0.41 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.47), p<0.001, neutral vs no information). Overestimation of PSA merits was more common than underestimation (7.9% vs 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Mens' knowledge of the benefits of screening varies with education, predicts satisfaction with care and the desire to complain, and may be improved through greater involvement in decision-making.

Variation in opinions on coercion use among mental healthcare professionals: a questionnaire study.

INTRODUCTION: Even if coercive measures are widely applied in psychiatry and have numerous well-known drawbacks, there is limited known on the agreement among mental healthcare professionals' opinions on their use. In a questionnaire study using standardized scenarios, we investigated variation in staff opinions on coercion. METHODS: In a web-based survey distributed to staff at three psychiatry hospitals, respondents were asked to consider if and what coercion to use by introducing two hypothetical scenarios involving involuntary psychiatric admission and in-hospital coercion. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two out of 601 invited staff members responded to the survey (Response Rate = 22%). There was large variation in participating staff members' opinions on how to best manage critical situations and what coercive measures were warranted. In the first scenario, 57% of respondents (n = 76) believed that the patient should be involuntarily admitted to hospital while the remaining respondents believed that the situation should be managed otherwise. Regarding the second scenario, 62% of respondents responded that some in-hospital coercion should be used. The majority of respondents believed that colleagues would behave similarly (60%) or with a tendency towards more coercion use (34%). Male gender, being nursing staff and having less coercion experience predicted being less inclined to choose involuntary hospital admission. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation in coercion use. This study suggests that this variation persists despite staff members being confronted with the same standardized situations. There is a need for evidence-based further guidance to minimize coercion in critical mental healthcare situations.

Staff responses to interventions aiming to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings: a questionnaire-based survey.

PURPOSE: To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online via REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention. RESULTS: A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores. CONCLUSIONS: The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.

Identifying high-risk medications and error types in Danish patient safety database using disproportionality analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medication error (ME) surveillance in Danish healthcare relies on the mandatory national incident reporting system, the Danish Patient Safety Database (DPSD). Individual case reviews and descriptive statistics with frequency counts are the most often used approaches when analyzing MEs in incident reporting systems, including the DPSD. However, incident reporting systems often generate a large number of reports and may suffer from underreporting; consequently, additional approaches are needed to overcome these challenges. Disproportionality analysis (DPA) is a statistical tool used for signal detection of adverse drug reactions in pharmacovigilance reports, but the evidence for using DPA on ME analysis in safety reporting systems is limited. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test the feasibility of DPA by analysing harmful MEs reported to DPSD 2014-2018. METHODS: We utilized proportional reporting ratios (PRR) to identify signals of diproportionality. RESULTS: We identified well-known high-risk medicines, including anticoagulants, opioids, insulins, antiepileptic, and antipsychotic drugs, and their association with several ME types and stages in a medication process. CONCLUSION: DPA might be suggested as an additional tool for screening MEs and identifying priority areas for further investigation in safety reporting systems.

Complaint behaviour among healthcare users: self-reported complaint experience and complaint proneness in adult men.

AIMS: When patients are harmed by, or dissatisfied with, healthcare, only a minority will lodge a complaint or file a claim for compensation. This survey aimed to investigate complaint behaviour and inequalities in complaints using self-reports and hypothetical case vignettes. METHODS: Cross-sectional, web-based survey among 6755 Danish men aged 45-70 years (response rate=30%). Participants reported their lifetime complaint experience and the likelihood that they would complain in response to hypothetical case vignettes. RESULTS: Overall, 4.8% of participants had complained about healthcare. Predictors were younger age (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.27, p=0.002 45-50 years compared with 65-70 years), chronic illness (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, p=0.006), rural residence (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.73, p=0.010 comparing least and most populated areas), high healthcare utilisation (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.03, p=0.002 primary care, and OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.55, p=0.000 hospital care) and decreased agreeableness on the 10-item Big Five personality inventory (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, p=0.034). Complaint experience was associated with increased wish to complain about the treatment in the hypothetical vignettes (p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Roughly 1 in 20 men reported having complained about healthcare. Complaints were more common among men who were younger, living in rural areas, diagnosed with chronic illness and high users of healthcare services. Prior complaint experience may be associated with a higher proclivity for complaining about future healthcare. Findings suggest differences in the way healthcare users respond to care experiences, pointing to the importance of aligning expectations and providing clear information about treatment options.

Using complaints from obstetric care for improving women's birth experiences - a cross sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Staff shortages and quality in obstetric care is a concern in most healthcare systems and a hot topic in the public debate that has centred on complaints about deficient care. However there has been a lack of empirical data to back the debate. The aim of this study was to analyse and describe complaints in obstetric care. Further, to compare the obstetric complaint pattern to complaints from women about other hospital services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool to code, analyse and extract contents of obstetric complaint cases in a region of Denmark between 2016 and 2021. We compared the obstetric complaint pattern to all other hospital complaint cases in the same period regarding female patients at a large University Hospital in a cross-sectional study. RESULTS: Complaints regarding obstetric care differed from women's complaints regarding other healthcare services. Women from obstetric care raised more problems per complaint, and tended to complain more about relational issues indicated by odds for complaints about staff shortage four times higher in the obstetric care group. Women from obstetric care had a lower proportion of compensation claims. CONCLUSION: Systematic complaint analysis acknowledged women's experience in obstetric care and may point to areas that potentially need further attention. Complaints from obstetric care show that women experience deficiencies related to relational problems like recognition and individualized support compared to complaints from women receiving other hospital healthcare services.

Harnessing patient complaints to systematically monitoring healthcare concerns through disproportionality analysis.

Staff observations are the most common source of data for driving improvements in care. However, the patient perspective should also be considered, and healthcare complaints offer concrete details that health organizations might otherwise overlook and that can highlight areas for learning and improvement in the healthcare system. However, because of the diverse nature of patient complaints, systematic analyses can be challenging. This study aimed to identify and prioritize areas for improvement using a data-driven approach to analysing patient complaints. The Danish version of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool was used to categorize the content of complaint letters. All complaints managed by the national complaints authority, compensation claims to the Patient Compensation Association, and locally managed complaints that were filed directly at Odense University Hospital from 2017 to 2021 were included. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were used to measure and display the top five signals of disproportionality and rank them by excess complaints at the hospital level and when divided into department types. The study included 6366 complaints containing 13 156 problems (on average, 2.1 problems mentioned per complaint letter). Surgical departments had the highest number of complaints (3818), followed by medical (1059), service (439), and emergency departments (239). Signal 1 of disproportionality, relating to quality problems during ward procedures, had the highest excess reporting of 1043 complaints at the hospital level and a PRR of 1.61 and was present in all department types. Signal 2, relating to safety problems during the examination and diagnosis stage, had an excess reporting of 699 problems and a PRR of 1.86 and was also present in all department types. Signal 3, relating to institutional problems during admission, had the highest PRR of 3.54 and was found in most department types. Signals 4 and 5, relating to environmental problems during ward procedures and care on the ward, respectively, had PRRs of 1.5 and 1.84 and were present in most department types. The study found that analysing patient complaints can identify potential areas for hospital improvement. The study identified recurring issues in multiple departments, including quality problems during ward procedures, safety problems during the examination, institutional problems during admission, and environmental problems on the ward. The study highlights disproportionality analysis of complaints as a valuable tool to monitor patient concerns systematically.

'My doctor should decide' - Predictors for healthcare users' stated preferences regarding medical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate predictors for healthcare users' declared decision control preferences and test their association with satisfaction in vignettes detailing various decision-making. METHODS: Cross-sectional vignette survey within a representative general male population aged 45-70 years (response rate 30%). Survey vignettes illustrated different levels of patient involvement. Participants rated their satisfaction with healthcare illustrated and separately rated their 'control preferences'. Comparisons were conducted with linear regression. RESULTS: Preferring the doctor to predominantly or exclusively decide (1588/6755 respondents) was associated with older age, being single, lower education, having chronic illness, and living in low-income and less populated areas, with fewer non-western immigrants. Following adjustment, lower education and chronic illness remained statistically significant. Personalities with less openness had preference for least control. When presented with specific clinical scenarios, respondents preferring active or passive roles were equally satisfied with scenarios demonstrating shared decision-making. DISCUSSION: Some groups of healthcare users were more likely to say that they preferred their doctor to decide. However, findings suggest that control preference statements, prior to facing a decision, should be interpreted with caution. PRACTICAL VALUE: Study findings highlight that patients vary regarding their expressed wish for control in medical decision-making but they seem equally satisfied with shared decision-making scenarios.

Medication incidents and medication errors in Danish healthcare: A descriptive study based on medication incident reports from the Danish Patient Safety Database, 2014-2018.

In Denmark, reporting of safety incidents to the nationwide Danish Patient Safety Database (DPSD) is mandatory. Medication incident reports constitute the largest category of safety reports. We aimed to provide numbers and characteristics of medication incidents and MEs reported to DPSD focusing on medication, their severity and the trends therein. This is a cross-sectional study of medication incident reports for individuals ≥18, submitted to DPSD in 2014-2018. We performed analyses on the (1) medication incident and (2) ME levels. Out of 479 814 incident reports, 61.18% (n = 293 536) were related to individuals ≥70 and 44.6% (n = 213 974) to nursing homes. Most of the events were harmless (70.87%, n = 340 047) and 0.8% (n = 3859) had caused severe harm or death. ME-analysis (n = 444 555) revealed that paracetamol and furosemide were the most frequently reported drugs. The most common drugs for severe and fatal MEs were warfarin, methotrexate, potassium chloride, paracetamol and morphine. When the reporting ratio for all MEs and harmful MEs was considered, other drugs than the most frequently reported ones were found to be associated with harm. We found a large proportion of harmless medication incident reports and reports from community healthcare services and identified high-risk medicines associated with harm.

Does systematic analysis of patient complaints and compensation cases at hospitals provide useful information to guide quality improvement? Experience from Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Patient complaints and compensation cases are analysed individually and do not allow for organisational learning. Systematic information on complaint patterns needs evidence-based measures. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) can systematically code and analyse complaints and compensation claims, but whether this information is useful for quality improvement is underexplored. We aim to explore if and how HCAT information is perceived useful to inform healthcare quality gaps. METHODS: To explore the HCAT's usefulness for quality improvement purposes, we used an iterative process. We accessed all complaints relating to a large university hospital. Trained HCAT raters systematically coded all cases, using the Danish version of HCAT. INTERVENTION: The intervention had four phases: (1) coding of cases, (2) education, (3) selection of HCAT analyses for dissemination, (4) 'dashboard' development and delivery of targeted HCAT reports. To study the interventions and phases, we used quantitative and qualitative approaches. The coding patterns were descriptively displayed on department and hospital level. The educational programme was monitored using passing rates, coding reliability checks and rater feedback. Online interviews recorded dissemination feedback. We used a phenomenological approach with thematised quotations from the interviews to analyse the usefulness of the information from cases coded. RESULTS: We coded 5217 complaint cases (11 056 complaint points). The average case coding time was 8.5 min (95% CI 8.2 to 8.7). All four raters passed the online test with >80% correct answers. Using rater feedback, we handled 25 cases of doubt. None affected the HCAT structure or categories. Interviews verified the usefulness of analyses after expert group dissemination. Three themes were important: 'overview of complaints', 'learning from complaints' and 'listening to the patients'. Stakeholders perceived the 'dashboard' development as highly relevant. CONCLUSION: Through the development process with several adjustments, stakeholders found the systematic approach useful for quality improvement. The hospital management evaluated the approach as promising and decided to test the approach in clinical practice.

Personality characteristics associated with satisfaction with healthcare and the wish to complain.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that satisfaction with healthcare and complaint rates vary with patients' socio-demographic characteristics. Likewise, patient personality might influence the perception of health care; however, empirical research has been scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between health care user personality and satisfaction with care and urge to complain. METHODS: This study is a randomized survey among Danish men aged 45 to 70 years (N = 6,756; 30% response rate) with hypothetical vignettes illustrating different courses of healthcare. Assuming they received the care described in vignettes, participants rated their satisfaction and wish to complain on a five-point Likert scale. Information on personality characteristics was obtained through self-reports using the standardized Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10). RESULTS: In multivariate analyses, we found respondents with higher scores on the agreeableness dimension expressing greater satisfaction with care (Likert difference 0.06, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.07; p < 0.001) and decreased wish to complain (-0.07, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.05; p < 0.001) while high neuroticism scores were associated with less satisfaction (-0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.00, p = 0.012) and an increased wish to complain about healthcare (0.04, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.06, p < 0.001). Interaction analyses could demonstrate no statistically significant interaction between the level of patient involvement in decision making in the scenarios and the effect of personality on respondents' satisfaction and wish to complain. Generally, however, when adjusting for personality, respondents' satisfaction increased (P < 0.001) with greater patient involvement illustrated in case scenarios while the wish to complain decreased (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest low agreeableness and high neuroticism scores are associated with lower patient satisfaction with healthcare and increased wish to complain. Irrespective of personality, however, the wish to complain seems responsive to changes in patient involvement, underscoring the importance of inclusive healthcare communication.

Use of the least intrusive coercion at Danish psychiatric wards: A register-based cohort study of 131,632 first and subsequent coercive episodes within 35,812 admissions.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric legislation in Denmark implies a principle of using the least intrusive types of coercion first. The intrusiveness is not universally agreed upon. We examined the order in which coercive measures during admission were used, implying that the first used should be less intrusive than the following types. METHODS: For coercive episodes reported to the national administrative register for the period 2011-16, the order of 12 legal coercive interventions during each admission was examined. Comparing with mechanical restraint, the odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (95%CI) of being first or subsequent used types were estimated using conditioned (96,611 episodes) and unconditioned (131,632 episodes) logistic regression models, stratified on sex. RESULTS: Totally 17,796 patients aged 18+ were subjected to at least one coercive episode. The median time between admission and the first episode was 4 days in men and 6 for women. For females, involuntary detention, forced feeding, coercive treatment of somatic disorder, locking of doors and close observations in females were used before mechanical restraint, and forced follow-up, involuntary electro convulsive therapy (ECT), forced treatment, use of gloves and straps, physical restraint and forced intramuscular medication was used later. In men, only involuntary detention was used before mechanical restraint, while involuntary ECT, close observations, administration of drugs, use of gloves and straps, physical restraint and forced intramuscular medication was used after mechanical restraint. CONCLUSION: The order of used coercive measures is not consistent with the international ranking of the least intrusive types, especially in men and in younger adults.

Methodological approaches for medication error analyses in patient safety and pharmacovigilance reporting systems: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Medication errors (MEs) are associated with patient harm and high economic costs. Healthcare authorities and pharmacovigilance organisations in many countries routinely collect data on MEs via reporting systems to improve patient safety and for learning purposes. Different approaches have been developed and used for the ME analysis, but an overview of the scope of available methods currently is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify, explore and map available literature on methods used to analyse MEs in reporting systems. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This protocol describes a scoping review, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework. A systematic search will be performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cinahl (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, websites of the major pharmacovigilance centres and national healthcare safety agencies, and citation search in Scopus in August 2022. All retrieved records are to be independently screened by two researchers on title, abstract and full text, involving a third researcher in case of disagreement. Data will be extracted and presented in descriptive and tabular form. The extraction will be based on information about methods of ME analyses, type of reporting system and information on MEs (medication name, ATC codes, ME type, medication-event categories and harm categories). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, scientific networks and relevant conferences.

Compensation Claims in Danish Emergency Care: Identifying Hot Spots and Blind Spots in the Quality of Care.

BACKGROUND: The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) offers a validated way of systematically extracting content from patient complaints for further analysis of complaint hot spots with harm or near misses, and blind spots with, for example, systemic problems or quality problems arising during discharge. This study analyzed a Danish national sample of compensations claims about emergency care using the HCAT. METHODS: Through use of the HCAT, compensation claims about Danish emergency care from 2013 to 2017 (N = 712) were coded and then grouped to identify and highlight hot spot problem areas (harm and near misses) and blind spot problem areas (admission/discharge, systemic problems, errors of omission). Two assessors coded the compensation claims by entering data into a database. RESULTS: The HCAT analyses of the sample resulted in coding of 1,305 problems. Most problems concerned quality and safety issues at the examination/diagnosis stage of care (63.9%). In 91.2% of the cases, the level of harm was moderate or major. Harm hot spots most often involved diagnostic errors (189 problems). Eighty-nine problems related to errors of omission, all causing moderate or major harm. For systemic blind spots, patient harm significantly increased in cases of multiple problem types in the compensation claim (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.3-2.0). CONCLUSION: Systematic coding and analytic approach to the HCAT can highlight potential quality problems in emergency care and point to areas for further consideration. From the perspective of future health care harm prevention, there seems to be a strong incentive for further analysis of the amount, nature, and prevention of diagnostic errors in emergency care.

Health Care Complaints and Professional Legal Responsibility - A Cross-Country Comparative Review.

One approach to stimulating patient safety and health care quality is through holding health care professionals legally responsible for their performance. Law and health care variation across countries, however, makes it difficult to get an overview and make comparisons of the personal legal responsibility of health care providers. This article describes health care professional liability and complaint measures in some European countries (UK, The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark) and US. Countries all have established a public authority to assess complaints about health professional performance and opportunities for economic compensation. The assessment of health professional legal responsibility generally relies on comparisons to supposedly "objective" standards predominantly dictated by the health profession. In line with the aim of ensuring acceptable care for all, health ethics principles on justice, respect for patients' autonomy, and the duty to do good and prevent harm may provide an attractive supplement in the description of legal responsibility in the health professions.