An intervention model that promotes accountability: peer messengers and patient/family complaints.

BACKGROUND: Patients and their families are well positioned to partner with health care organizations to help identify unsafe and dissatisfying behaviors and performance. A peer messenger process was designed by the Center for Professional and Patient Advocacy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (Nashville, Tennessee) to address "high-risk" physicians identified through analysis of unsolicited patient complaints, a proxy for risk of lawsuits. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive study used peer messenger debriefing results from data-driven interventions at 16 geographically disparate community (n = 7) and academic (n = 9) medical centers in the United States. Some 178 physicians served as peer messengers, conducting interventions from 2005, through 2009 on 373 physicians identified as high risk. RESULTS: Most (97%) of the high-risk physicians received the feedback professionally, and 64% were "Responders." Responders' risk scores improved at least 15%, where Nonresponders' scores worsened (17%) or remained unchanged (19%) (p < or = .001). Responders were more often physicians practicing in medicine and surgery than emergency medicine physicians, had longer organizational tenures, and engaged in lengthier first-time intervention meetings with messengers. Years to achieve responder status correlated positively with initial communication-related complaints (r = .32, p < .001), but all complaint categories were equally likely to change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Peer messengers, recognized by leaders and appropriately supported with ongoing training, high-quality data, and evidence of positive outcomes, are willing to intervene with colleagues over an extended period of time. The physician peer messenger process reduces patient complaints and is adaptable to addressing unnecessary variation in other quality/safety metrics.

An analysis of risk factors for patient complaints about ambulatory anesthesiology care.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiology groups continually seek data sources and evaluation metrics for ongoing professional practice evaluation, credentialing, and other quality initiatives. The analysis of patient complaints associated with physicians has been previously shown to be a marker for patient dissatisfaction and a predictor of malpractice claims. Additionally, previous studies in other specialties have revealed a nonuniform distribution of complaints among professionals. In this study, we describe the distribution of complaints among anesthesia providers and identify factors associated with complaint risk in pediatric and adult populations. METHODS: We performed an analysis of a complaint database for an academic medical center. Complaints were recorded as comments during postoperative telephone calls to ambulatory surgery patients regarding the quality of their anesthesiology care. Calls between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2010 were included. Risk factors were grouped into 3 categories: patient demographics, procedural, and provider characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 22,871 calls placed on behalf of 120 anesthesiologists were evaluated, of which 307 yielded a complaint. There was no evidence of provider-to-provider heterogeneity in complaint risk in the pediatric population. In the adult population, an unadjusted test for the random intercept variance component in the mixed effects model pointed toward significant heterogeneity (P = 0.01); however, after adjusting for a prespecified set of risk factors, provider-to-provider heterogeneity was no longer observed (P = 0.20). Several risk factors exhibited evidence for complaint risk. In the pediatric patient model, risk factors associated with complaint risk included a 10-year change in age, the use of general anesthesia (versus not), and a 1-hour change in the actual minus scheduled start times. Odds ratios were 1.47 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-2.08), 0.22 (95% CI, 0.07-0.62), and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.10-1.47), respectively. In the adult patient model, risk factors associated with complaint risk included male gender, general anesthesia, a 10-year change in provider experience, and speaking with the patient (rather than a family member). Odd ratios were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.47-0.92), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47-0.95), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.01-1.38), and 1.96 (95% CI, 1.17-3.29), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was apparent evidence in adult patients to suggest heterogeneity in provider risk for a patient complaint. However, once patient, procedural, and provider factors were acknowledged in analyses, such evidence for heterogeneity is diminished substantially. Further study into how and why these factors are associated with greater complaint risk may reveal potential interventions to decrease complaints.