Morbidity and mortality meetings: gold, silver or bronze?

What trauma patients need: the European dilemma

There is a need for implementation and maturation of an inclusive trauma system in every country in Europe, with patient centered care by dedicated surgeons. This process should be initiated by physicians and medical societies, based on the best available evidence, and supported and subsequently funded by the government and healthcare authorities. A systematic approach to organizing all aspects of trauma will result in health gain in terms of quality of care provided, higher survival rates, better functional outcomes and quality of life. In addition, it will provide reliable data for both research, quality improvement and prevention programs. Severely injured patients need surgeons with broad technical and non-technical competencies to provide holistic, inclusive and compassionate care. Here we describe the philosophy of the surgical approach and define the necessary skills for trauma, both surgical and other, to improve outcome of severely injured patients. As surgery is an essential part of trauma care, surgeons play an important role for the optimal treatment of trauma patients throughout and after their hospital stay, including the intensive care unit (ICU). However, in most European countries, it might not be obvious to either the general public, patients or even the physicians that the surgeon must assume this responsibility in the ICU to optimize outcomes. The aim of this paper is to define key elements in terms of trauma systems, trauma-specific surgical skills and active critical care involvement, to organize and optimize trauma care in Europe.

Goals of the Morbidity and Mortality meeting in acute care: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe what is known about understandings of the goals of the Morbidity and Mortality meeting.

REVIEW METHODS USED

The study utilised scoping review methodology.

DATA SOURCES

Papers in English presenting empirical data published in academic journals with Morbidity and Mortality meetings as the central concept of study. Included papers presented data about the perception of stakeholders about goals of the Morbidity and Mortality meeting. Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases were search conducted from earliest record - October 20th 2021. A manual search of the reference lists of all included papers identified further eligible papers.

REVIEW METHODS

Data about the location, participant type, and methods/ methodology were extracted and entered onto a database. Content analysis of the results and discussion sections of qualitative papers yielded broad categories of meeting goal. This provided a framework for the organisation of the quantitative findings, which were subsequently extracted and charted under these categories.

RESULTS

Twenty-five papers were included in the review, and six main categories were identified in the qualitative synthesis of findings. These included meeting goals related to quality and safety, education, legal and reputational risk management, professional culture, family/caregivers, and peer support.

CONCLUSIONS

There are heterogeneous understandings of key terminologies used to describe Morbidity and Mortality meeting goals, particularly evident within understandings of educational and quality and safety meeting goals. This paper defines and unravels this complexity in a way that researchers and clinicians can define, compare and evaluate their own department's meeting goals.

What can you learn as a foundation doctor from analysing deaths in hospital?

Deaths in hospital represent a vital learning opportunity for both individual clinicians and the wider healthcare system. Many deaths are reviewed and discussed in morbidity and mortality meetings, with the Royal College of Physicians promoting Structured Judgement Review (SJR) methodology to support this discussion. An analysis of 1 year of SJRs in one hospital was undertaken, generating a toolkit to support junior doctors in evaluating in-hospital deaths. Here, the opportunities and limitations of this analysis are discussed, with consideration of ways to improve the uptake of SJR across the hospital team. These reviews exemplify one way of maximising learning from in-hospital deaths.

Learning from experience: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives on reporting and dealing with serious adverse events

INTRODUCTION

In surgery, serious adverse events have effects on the patient journey, the patient outcome and may constitute a burden to the surgeon involved. This study aims to investigate facilitators and barriers to transparency around, reporting of and learning from serious adverse events among surgeons.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative study design, we recruited 15 surgeons (4 females and 11 males) with 4 different surgical subspecialties from four Norwegian university hospitals. The participants underwent individual semistructured interviews and data were analysed according to principles of inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We identified four overarching themes. All surgeons reported having experienced serious adverse events, describing these as part of 'the nature of surgery'. Most surgeons reported that established strategies failed to combine facilitation of learning with taking care of the involved surgeons. Transparency about serious adverse events was by some felt as an extra burden, fearing that openness on technical-related errors could affect their future career negatively. Positive implications of transparency were linked with factors such as minimising the surgeon's feeling of personal burden with positive impact on individual and collective learning. A lack of facilitation of individual and structural transparency factors could entail 'collateral damage'. Our participants suggested that both the younger generation of surgeons in general, and the increasing number of women in surgical professions, might contribute to 'maturing' the culture of transparency.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that transparency associated with serious adverse events is hampered by concerns at both personal and professional levels among surgeons. These results emphasise the importance of improved systemic learning and the need for structural changes; it is crucial to increase the focus on education and training curriculums and offer advice on coping strategies and establish arenas for safe discussions after serious adverse events.

The nature and sources of the emotional distress felt by intensivists and the burdens that are carried: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Work in intensive care units is often traumatic and emotionally distressing, sometimes leading to growth but at other times to negative outcomes such as worker burnout and mental illness. The type and origin of distresses to intensivists has been poorly characterised in the literature. This evidence gap makes it difficult to develop tailored educational process or cultural interventions for all who work within the specialty.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to elicit the nature and sources of workplace emotional distress in an international sample of intensivists.

METHOD

Interviews were undertaken with experienced intensivists in Australia and Israel related to the basis of workplace distress. These were transcribed and qualitatively thematically analysed.

RESULTS

In 2018, 19 intensivists participated in the study. Several key themes emerged from data analysis, some relating to clinical work, such as catastrophic patient outcomes, and some relating to interpersonal and systems-level challenges. Navigating complex interpersonal dynamics with carers and staff, both within and outside the intensive care unit team, caused substantial emotional burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Many factors contribute to workplace stress for doctors in the intensive care setting. In elucidating common reactions to these stressors, we have attempted to normalise responses. We further note that the skill sets relevant to the many challenges identified are generally missing in medical training curricula. It may be prudent to consider their inclusion in the future.

How should we describe complications and stratify error in the treatment of facial fractures? A systematic review of the literature

Oral and maxillofacial (OMFS) facial fractures account for approximately 5%-10% of presentations to emergency departments in the UK. Although most trauma is treated operatively, different methods of surgery exist for the same clinical presentation and non- surgical management is in some cases appropriate. Analysis of patient morbidity is an essential component of clinical governance in surgery. OMFS units in the UK should hold regular morbidity and mortality (M&M) meetings, but no consensus exists for which cases should be discussed. For example, most units focus only on cases treated surgically, primarily unexpected returns to theatre. Finally, there is no agreed structure for describing how complications occur and a focus on terms such as error. The aim of this review is to help inform which patients should be discussed in M&M meetings based on existing scoring systems. A systematic review of the literature has been undertaken using the Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology. Databases searched were PubMed and Science Direct. Eleven unique papers and a companion article met the criteria and were analysed. Many M&M classification systems exist, but these systems are unsuited for maxillofacial purposes. There is a need for a novel system which is tailored to the specialty.

Cyclic workflow to improve implementation of learning points from morbidity and mortality meetings

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and mortality meetings (M&MMs) are organized in most hospital departments with an educational purpose to learn from adverse events (AEs) to improve patient care. M&MMs often lack effectiveness due to unsuccessful systematic follow-up of areas of improvement. This can have an effect on improving patient safety and care. Therefore, a new strategy that focuses on implementing areas of improvement into daily practice is necessary. The study aim is to see if we could improve the implementation of meeting outcomes from the M&MM by using a cyclic workflow, and which factors are important to achieve its implementation.

METHODS

This prospective study took place at the department of gynecologic oncology of a university hospital. Research was conducted with a participatory action research (PAR) approach using 10 consecutive M&MMs in 2019 and 2020. The cyclical workflow consisted of an action list based on the PDCA-cycle, a check of the implementation of areas for improvement at the next M&MM and regular monitoring of tasks. Each M&MM was observed and each professional with an assigned task was interviewed and gave their informed consent. Thematic content analysis was performed with the program Atlas.ti 8.4.20.

RESULTS

Out of the 39 tasks that resulted from 10 M&MMs, 37 (94.8%) followed all the steps in the PDCA-cycle and were implemented. In total, 16 interviews were conducted with consultants, nurses, registrars and residents. Five main factors were important to achieve follow-up of areas for improvement: organizational culture, motivation, commitment, communication to mobilize employees and skills. Repetition of the cyclic workflow at the M&MM and an external person who reminded professionals of their assigned task(s) was important to change habits and motivate professionals.

CONCLUSION

Cyclical tools can support the implementation of areas for improvement to optimize the M&MM. A M&MM with an organizational culture where attendees can discuss openly and freely may motivate attendees to take on tasks successfully. A positive stimulant to reach commitment of professionals is team participation. Integrating new habits of reflection may lead to a deeper level of learning from the PDCA-cycle and of the M&MM. Creating a learning environment outside of the M&MM may support professionals to take on actions and engage in improvement practices. Future research may focus on including a comparative analysis to show a success rate of the implementation of learning points from the M&MM more clearly.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Conducting Meetings on Morbidity and Mortality

This CIRSE Standards of Practice document is developed by an expert writing group under the guidance of the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee. It aims to assist Interventional Radiologists in their daily practice by providing best practices for conducting meetings on morbidity and mortality.

Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part II: Processes for Reliable Quality Improvement

After decades of experience supporting surgical quality and safety by the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Program was developed to help hospitals improve surgical quality, safety, and reliability. This review is the second of a 3-part review aiming to synthesize the evidence supporting the main principles of the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Program. Evidence was systematically reviewed for 5 principles: case review, peer review, credentialing and privileging, data for surveillance, and continuous quality improvement using data. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 and 2 reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical fashion, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 9,098 studies across the 5 principles were identified. After exclusion criteria, a total of 184 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. The identified literature supports the importance of standardized processes and systems to identify problems and improve quality of care.

Openness to new perspectives created by patient participation at the morbidity and mortality meeting

OBJECTIVES

Morbidity and mortality meetings (M&MMs) at surgical departments may improve when patients participate, leading to different learning points. A gynecological oncology department invited patients to join their M&MMs. The practical constraints and experiences important from the perspective of patients and their healthcare professionals were evaluated.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and professionals who attended M&MMs at a gynecological oncology department between 2016 and 2018. The interviews were transcribed and coded and thematic content analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Eight patients and 17 healthcare professionals participated. Eleven themes related to interpersonal dynamics. The five shared themes are: patient-doctor relationship, language, openness of communication, learning and personal impact. All participants suggested maintaining the new practical design of the M&MMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and healthcare professionals valued patient participation in the M&MMs. Patient participation is possible when professionals are open to discussing and learning from adverse events (AEs). In this setting, patients feel that they are taken seriously and gain a better understanding of the course of an AE.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Involving patients in M&MMs led to new insights, better understanding, and improved processing of AEs. Collaborating with patients and using their feedback seems to be effective when developing innovations in healthcare.

Development of the 'People-Processes-Paradigm' critical analysis tool for mortality and morbidity reviews: improving understanding of systems factors

BACKGROUND

The impact of systems problems and human factors on delivering safe, high-quality patient care is well recognized. In the surgical setting, mortality and morbidity reviews (MMRs) are the key forum for reviewing and analysing adverse events in patient care yet there is a paucity of simple tools for undertaking such analyses. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a new tool for analysing mortality and morbidity cases incorporating human factors and systems analysis.

METHODS

The published literature, professional standards, guidelines and existing audit tools for MMRs were reviewed. The 'People-Processes-Paradigm' tool was developed and pilot testing was undertaken and stakeholder feedback was obtained.

RESULTS

Models found for undertaking systems-based analysis of adverse surgical events included the 3D model, SEIPS and the Queensland Health human error and patient safety (HEAPS) Incident Management Tool. Guidelines for standards in MMRs are provided by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, New South Wales Clinical Excellence Commission and Australia and New Zealand audit of surgical mortality (ANZASM). The People-Processes-Paradigm model incorporates these standards and evidence-based systems analysis tools into a single effective tool. The pilot study evaluating the use of this tool demonstrated it to be practical and easily applicable to regular use by clinicians, with the ability to be tailored to individual health service use. Improvements such as electronic format and clarification of case selection processes were recommended by users.

CONCLUSION

The People-Processes-Paradigm tool has been developed for surgeons by surgeons incorporating current professional, legal and regulatory requirements in Australasia, easily transferrable to electronic platforms. This model requires further testing for validation.