Patient Experiences Filing Complaints to Health Professional Regulatory Bodies: A Scoping Review

When patients experience unsafe, unethical, or disrespectful care, filing a complaint to a professional regulatory body is often framed as a pathway to accountability and public protection. However, the complaints process can be complex, slow, emotionally taxing, and difficult to navigate, and many complainants report dissatisfaction with outcomes and communication. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to map the literature on patient and family experiences of filing complaints to health professional regulatory bodies, focusing on complainants’ motivations, expectations, procedural experiences, perceived fairness, outcomes, and recommendations for improving accessibility and trust. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus from inception to July 2025. Eligible studies examined patient/family experiences with regulatory complaints processes (distinct from hospital patient-relations complaints), including disciplinary/fitness-to-practice pathways and health inspectorate investigations. We extracted data on study characteristics, regulator type, complaint pathway steps, communication experiences, emotional impacts, outcomes, and equity considerations. Seventeen studies were included across multiple jurisdictions, with most using qualitative or mixed-methods designs. Four themes emerged: (1) Why complainants approach regulators, motivations centered on preventing recurrence and being heard rather than punishment alone; (2) Procedural opacity and the “black box,” complainants described unclear thresholds, confusing timelines, and limited explanation of decisions; (3) Relational harms within the process, many reported feeling disbelieved, managed, or sidelined, with high emotional burden and retraumatization risk; and (4) Fairness, outcomes, and legitimacy, perceived fairness hinged on transparency, respectful communication, and visible learning, while “no action” outcomes often undermined trust. The literature suggests that regulatory complaint processes frequently fail to meet complainants’ expectations for transparency, voice, and learning, core determinants of legitimacy. Improvements should prioritize accessible pathways, plain-language communication, timely updates, trauma-informed practices, and feedback loops that demonstrate system learning while maintaining due process for clinicians.