Report into Complaints Handling at West Herts Hospital Trust
Background
The qualitative review was requested by West Herts Hospital Trust (WHHT). It aimed to identify good practice as well as improvements, and to see if response letters indicated an improvement on last year.
What We Did
20 complaints and final response letters spanning from 2013 to 2016, were supplied by WHHT to HwH.
The review focused soley on the final response letter element of the complaints process, and looked solely at the information contained within this letter and the original complainant letter. The review could not comment on other elements of the complaints process such as whether:
- The complaint was acknowledged within 3 days
- The complainant was kept up to date with timescales and plans
- The decision was just
- The complainant was satisfied with the final response.
Healthwatch Hertfordshire’s Quality and Improvement Sub Committee (QISC), each scored the response letters individually then subsequently agreed the scores as a group.
What We Found
- Overall the standard of response letters were scored highly, with only a couple exceptions. There were also some exemplary responses noted.
- The response letters consistently stated who investigated or oversaw the investigation into the complaint. This person always seemed to be of appropriate role within the organisation.
- The more structured and outcome/remedy focused the complaint letter, the better the Trust’s response letters.
- It was found there has been a gradual decline in timely responses from 2013 to 2016, from 100% in 2013 & 2014, down to 20% in 2016.
- Consistently the tone of the letters was scored highly across 2013 to 2016.
- There was an improvement from 2014/15 to 2016 regarding ‘reasons for decisions being made clear’, increasing from 71% to 100% by 2016.
- Generally, technical terminology was explained, or avoided where possible. On the occasions where the use of technical terminology was not explained, these were aimed at a complainant who clearly understood his/her condition and the clinical terminology related to it.
- Honesty and Transparency - it was highlighted that in this area WHHT scores lower compared to other sections in the review. It was found that there has been little improvement or change from 2013 to 2016 when assessing Honesty and Transparency in the response letters included in this review.
- On the whole complainants were offered the chance to discuss the outcome of the investigation.
- All response letters, bar two signposted to the Ombudsman if the complainant was still unsatisfied. However, the local advocacy service POhWER was not offered in any complaint response letter across the period.
What happens next
We proposed the following recommendations to the Trust for them to consider:
- To ensure all issues raised in a complaint are answered in the final response letter.
- To further expand the summary statement at the beginning of each response letter, so that it is more personalised and detailed.
- To ensure all complainants are offered the option to discuss the outcome of the complaint.
- To ensure acknowledgement of responsibility where appropriate. Especially in the cases where there are multiple organisations involved or responding.
- To consider if PALS is the best place to direct a complaint when they wish to discuss an outcome, or if a named complaint manager, or someone who handled the complaint is more appropriate.
- To ensure all final responses signpost to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and provide contact details of how to do this.
- To make complainants aware in the final response letter that an advocacy service such as POhWER can support them with taking this to the next step.
The full report can be read here
If require this report in another format, please get in touch.
