Psych Vivas · Professional — complaint management and regulation
Complaint management and professional regulation — structured clinical viva
Fellowship viva covering complaint taxonomy, open disclosure, doctor impact under investigation, recurrent risk, and proportionate escalation.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
Interpretation
Reveal interpretationShowHide
This viva tests professional dual loyalty: compassionate justice for families and safe support for staff, under public-protection duties.[2][4]
Definitions. Separate complaint (dissatisfaction), claim (civil remedy), and fitness-to-practise/regulatory process (public protection). Map content to clinical, management, and relationship domains.[4]
Why complain. Explanation, accountability, apology, prevention (Vincent). Disclosure gap between patient expectations and physician fear (Gallagher).[3][5]
Immediate pathway. Preserve records; open disclosure of known facts; governance and indemnity; never pressure withdrawal or alter notes.[3][5]
Second victim. Bourne morbidity; Seys second-victim review; assess suicide and fitness; support and restrict duties if unsafe.[2][6]
Recurrent risk. Bismark concentration of recurrent complaints; proactive remediation, not fatalism.[1]
Legal safety. Principles only — no invented section numbers. Regulatory and complaints processes are jurisdiction-specific; quote principles rather than fabricated statutes.[1][2]
References6ShowHide
- [1]Bismark MM, Spittal MJ, Gurrin LC, et al. Identification of doctors at risk of recurrent complaints: a national study of healthcare complaints in Australia BMJ Qual Saf, 2013.PMID 23576774
- [2]Bourne T, Wynants L, Peters M, et al. The impact of complaints procedures on the welfare, health and clinical practise of 7926 doctors in the UK: a cross-sectional survey BMJ Open, 2015.PMID 25592686
- [3]Vincent C, Young M, Phillips A Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action Lancet, 1994.PMID 7911925
- [4]Reader TW, Gillespie A, Roberts J Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a systematic review and coding taxonomy BMJ Qual Saf, 2014.PMID 24876289
- [5]Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, Ebers AG, et al. Patients' and physicians' attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors JAMA, 2003.PMID 12597752
- [6]Seys D, Wu AW, Van Gerven E, et al. Health care professionals as second victims after adverse events: a systematic review Eval Health Prof, 2013.PMID 22976126