Let a complaint reach the work that needs changing

What we found in the news

The Ombudsman's December 2022 NHS Complaint Standards (opens in a new tab) place learning within the responsibilities of the organization. Their description of a learning culture includes this expectation:

Organisations demonstrate how they use learning to improve services.

These standards have a particular scope: NHS services in England, including relevant independent providers. Our interest is the operational question they raise for a wider range of care and community organizations. After responding to a complaint, can the team show what happened to the issue behind it?

Why this matters to us

The person writing the response may not control the process that caused the difficulty. A complaint about a canceled session could involve scheduling, public information, staff cover and the way participants were contacted.

Closing the correspondence is therefore one point in the work. Learning may require a different colleague to examine a different part of the service.

At genus, we think that connection deserves attention. A respectful response to the individual and a practical organizational change both need an owner. One should not be used to excuse the absence of the other.

Separate the response from the improvement work

Imagine a hypothetical community program receiving a complaint after a visitor arrives for a session that has moved. A manager acknowledges the inconvenience and investigates what happened through the organization's process.

Alongside that response, the team discovers that the website was updated but the printed timetable at reception was not. The improvement task is now specific: decide how changes reach every place where the timetable is published.

The person who made the complaint should not be expected to manage that task. Nor should staff assume that a kind apology has made the underlying problem disappear. Record the action separately, with someone able to change the relevant process.

Serious or urgent concerns must follow the appropriate organizational routes. A routine improvement list cannot replace those responsibilities.

Give the action enough detail to test

An instruction to communicate better leaves too much to interpretation. In this example, the team could agree that a timetable change triggers a check of the website, printed copies and booked participants, using authorized contact arrangements.

That proposal still needs practical questions answered. Who knows a change has been approved? Who updates the printed information? What happens if the colleague responsible is absent? How does the team notice that one route has been missed?

Try the revised process with a fictional change before relying on it. Include the colleagues who perform the work. They may spot that an instruction is impossible during a busy reception period or that a list is held somewhere they cannot access.

Make the change manageable enough that people can follow it during an ordinary day.

Return to the person and to the team

Where appropriate and consistent with the complaint process, explain what the organization has decided and what remains unresolved. Be specific about what has actually changed. A planned action should not be described as completed.

The people doing the work also need the explanation. They should understand why the timetable process has changed, without unnecessary disclosure of the complainant's personal information. That makes the instruction more useful than an unexplained new rule.

Review whether the change is being used and whether it has introduced another difficulty. For example, a longer cancellation checklist might be sensible, but staff need time and authority to complete it. If the same problem recurs, examine what prevented the action from working before simply repeating the instruction.

What this means for the people you serve

A person who raises a concern is contributing information about the service they experienced. They should be able to do so without being made responsible for fixing it. Offer accessible ways to raise concerns and clear information about the response process. Their account can help the organization learn even when the final decision does not match every requested outcome.

The genus connection

Where enabled, genus feedback tools and staff tasks can support gathering a concern and assigning appropriate follow-up. They do not constitute a complete complaints investigation system or establish that a complaint has been resolved.

Organisations need suitable permissions, procedures and accountable people around that information. The current partner portal and insights (opens in a new tab) provide configurable operational support; the organization remains responsible for its decisions and for communicating them fairly.

One question for your next team meeting

Can we follow one recent concern from the response we gave to the piece of work we changed?