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 & tools
Target exams
Interpretation
Reveal interpretation
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]
Key points
[1] [2] [4]References
- [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