Beyond Feedback: A Rhetorical Analysis of Not-Upheld Complaints in Adult Neurodevelopmental Assessment

Objective: To analyse the rhetorical strategies employed in formal complaints regarding adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism assessments, specifically where no service failure was identified.Methods: A rhetorical analysis was conducted on 48 complaints determined to be not upheld overall, submitted to a UK NHS Trust between 2024 and 2025. Results: Complainants demonstrated high rhetorical sophistication, frequently deploying a “Triple Core” strategy: Causal Attribution (blaming the service for life failures), Emotional Impact Description (framing dissatisfaction as medical trauma), and Procedural Challenge (alleging administrative breach). A minority (18.8%) employed economic arguments, whilst 81.2% included specific outcome demands, such as a prescription or a specific diagnosis. Conclusions: Complaints in this area of clinical practice demonstrate sophisticated rhetorical construction, functioning as instruments of organisational pressure. The “Triple Core” strategy creates an epistemic conflict where clinical judgement is contested by the patient’s lived experience narrative. These findings suggest that high complaint volumes may reflect a systemic gap between public expectation and clinical criteria rather than safety failures.