Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life‐changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

Abstract

IntroductionWe conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life‐changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families.MethodsWe searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life‐changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full‐text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best‐fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts.FindingsFifty‐three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty‐one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes ‘Transparency’, ‘Person‐centered’ and ‘Trustworthy’ represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, ‘Restorative justice’ encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life‐changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress‐reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action.ConclusionOur findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress‐reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events.Public ContributionOne member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life‐changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.