Multilevel governance framework on grievance redressal for patient rights violations in India

Abstract

The notion of patient rights encompasses the obligations of the state and healthcare providers to respect the dignity, autonomy and equality of care-seeking individuals in healthcare processes. Functional patient grievance redressal systems are key to ensuring that the rights of individuals seeking healthcare are protected. We critically examined the published literature from high-income and upper-middle-income countries to establish an analytical framework on grievance redressal for patient rights violations in health facilities. We then used lawsuits on patient rights violations from the Supreme Court of India to analyse the relevance of the developed framework to the Indian context. With market perspectives pervading the health sector, there is an increasing trend of adopting a consumerist approach to protecting patient rights. In this line, avenues for grievance redressal for patient rights violations are gaining traction. Some of the methods and instruments for patient rights implementation include charters, ombudsmen, tribunals, health professional councils, separating rules for redressal and professional liability in patient rights violations, blame-free reporting systems, direct community monitoring and the court system. The grievance redressal mechanisms for patient rights violations in health facilities showcase multilevel governance arrangements with overlapping decision-making units at the national and subnational levels. The privileged position of medical professionals in multilevel governance arrangements for grievance redressal puts care-seeking individuals at a disadvantaged position during dispute resolution processes. Inclusion of external structures in health services and the healthcare profession and laypersons in the grievance redressal processes is heavily contested. Normatively speaking, a patient grievance redressal system should be accessible, impartial and independent in its function, possess the required competence, have adequate authority, seek continuous quality improvement, offer feedback to the health system and be comprehensive and integrated within the larger healthcare regulatory architecture.

The challenge of ensuring elderly people can access their health insurance entitlements: a mixed methods study on the Republic of Srpska’s Protector of Patients’ Health Insurance Entitlements

“…Enforcing patient rights requires an enabling legal and regulatory environment at the constitutional, and administrative levels, as well as action from civil society and media actors. 33 …”

“…While actors such as the PPHIE can be bolstered to take on a larger role in grievance redressal (such as through an expanded mandate allowing them to file complaints on a patient’s behalf), it is essential that health system accountability be cultivated through multiple channels. Enforcing patient rights requires an enabling legal and regulatory environment at the constitutional, and administrative levels, as well as action from civil society and media actors 33…”

Crying baby gets the milk? The governmentality of grievance redressal for patient rights violations in Karnataka, India

“…In the eyes of medical profession, engaging non-medical personnel in grievance redressal processes is seen as ‘external regulation’ which is often challenged by the medical profession. 74 Nonetheless, in the wake of wide access to medical information, increasing frequency of medical negligence reports, accountability demands and complexity of healthcare provision, many European countries and Australia have introduced external regulation as one of the tiers of professional regulation and it is often linked with wider healthcare quality. 75 76 In some settings such as UK, cases of serious professional misconduct are subjected to open public hearing.…”

Customers’ Perception Towards Accountability of Diagnostic Centres: Evidence from India

“… This diagnostic center has a proper grievance redressal system for its clients. 10 , 47 10. Perception regarding the authenticity and reliability of the reports generated by the diagnostic center.…”