Investigating and Resolving Complaints

A fair investigation is structured, proportionate, and impartial. It tests assumptions, triangulates evidence, and explains reasoning clearly. ^[2][6]

Planning the investigation

Questions to answer can be defined first, then records, device outputs, call logs, and relevant training or policy documents gathered. ^[2][4]

Identify who needs to be interviewed and in what order. Keeping scope tight avoids delay and respects privacy. ^[2][4]

Fact-finding without bias

Open questions in interviews help separate facts from opinions. Timelines should be checked against system metadata. If accounts differ, the final response explains how conflicts were resolved. Seniority or popularity should not influence interpretation. ^[6][5]

• Investigation steps to follow: define issues; collect evidence; interview; analyse; draft response; clinical or managerial review; final sign-off; communication with escalation options. ^[2]

Providing registration details

Complainants are entitled to know the professional status of the registrant involved in their care. This means supplying your General Optical Council registration number and any registered specialty areas (for example, contact lens specialty).

Offering these details promptly, alongside information about the complaints process and external escalation routes, demonstrates openness and professionalism. Clear identification reassures patients that their concerns are being addressed within a regulated framework and strengthens public confidence in the complaints system.

Remedies and explanations

Outcomes should fit findings: apologise for failures; correct errors; remake or refund where fair; set service actions with owners and dates. If care met standards, explain why in plain words and offer next steps (for example, a second opinion) without defensiveness. ^[1][3]

Communicating the response

Each point raised should be addressed using headings matched to the complaint for readability. A brief summary of what was learned and what will change is included. State how to escalate if the complainant remains unsatisfied. ^[1][2]

Supporting staff fairly

Staff named in complaints benefit from support and a clear process. Performance issues should be distinguished from honest mistakes or system constraints. Feedback is provided privately, focusing on behaviour and systems rather than character. ^[5][2]

• Learning record checklist: what changed now (scripts, layout, training); who owns it; when it will be reviewed; how success will be measured. ^[5]

Keeping momentum

Tracking milestones and sending updates on schedule maintains confidence. If the timeline slips, the reason should be explained and a new date provided. Cases are closed in the log with outcomes and learning fields completed, not just marked as "resolved". ^[2][1]

References (numbered in text) Why we include references

1. Providing a remedy — Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Find (opens in a new tab)
2. NHS England: NHS England complaints policy Find (opens in a new tab)
3. Openness and honesty when things go wrong: The professional duty of candour — General Medical Council (published 29 June 2015; updated) Find (opens in a new tab)
4. Section 46 Code of Practice – records management / Records management and security guidance — Information Commissioner's Office Find (opens in a new tab)
5. Promoting a just culture — Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Find (opens in a new tab)
6. Traber D Giardina; Saritha Korukonda; Umber Shahid; Viralkumar Vaghani; Divvy K Upadhyay; Greg F Burke; Hardeep Singh, Use of patient complaints to identify diagnosis-related safety concerns: a mixed-method evaluation — BMJ Quality & Safety (2021) Find (opens in a new tab)