Health practitioner experience of Health and Disability Commissioner investigations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The New Zealand Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) Act 1994 was designed to protect the rights of consumers and provide a fair, simple, speedy, and efficient resolution to complaints. No recent studies have been published about the health practitioner experience of HDC investigations following a patient complaint, and none that include nurses and midwives. AIM To use a restorative inquiry framework to understand the impacts and needs of health practitioners arising from an event that led to an investigation by the HDC during the last 10 years. METHODS A descriptive qualitative approach was used with data collected using semi-structured interviews with doctors, nurses, and midwives (n = 13). The data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Participants worked in primary care, aged care, and services provided by public hospitals. The emotional impacts arising from the event and investigation were profound, with long-lasting effects on participants' sense of self, reputation, and how, or if, they continued to practice. Participants indicated a need for support from colleagues and employers, a fair and relational investigation process, and a meaningful way of connecting to put things right. DISCUSSION A shift to a restorative approach whereby people involved in a complaint come together to speak truthfully about what happened and its impact on their lives, offers hope for a process that repairs relationships and improves health services. Restorative approaches clarify accountabilities and could lead to more satisfactory outcomes for all parties. This study contributes to emerging thinking about the use of restorative approaches in health-care contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".