Barriers and facilitators to learn and improve through morbidity and mortality conferences: a qualitative study

Systematic Review of Morbidity and Mortality Meeting Standardization: Does It Lead to Improved Professional Development, System Improvements, Clinician Engagement, and Enhanced Patient Safety Culture?

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to better understand the effect of standardized Morbidity and Mortality meetings (M&Ms) on learning, system improvement, clinician engagement, and patient safety culture.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched using a range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings to identify the major concepts of M&M meetings. Articles published between October 2012 (the end date of an earlier review) and February 2021 were assessed against the inclusion criteria, and thematic synthesis was conducted on the included studies.

RESULTS

After abstract and full-text review in Covidence, from 824 studies identified, 16 met the eligibility criteria. Studies were mostly surveys (n = 13) and evaluated effectiveness primarily from the perspectives of M&M chairs and participants, rather than assessment of objective improvement in patient outcomes. The most prevalent themes relating to the standardization of M&M processes were case selection (n = 15) and administration (n = 12). The objectives of quality improvement and education were equally prevalent (12 studies each), but several studies reported that these 2 objectives as conflicting rather than complementary. Clinician engagement, patient safety culture, and organizational governance and leadership were identified as facilitators of effective M&Ms.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to guide best practice in M&Ms, but standardized structures and processes implemented with organizational leadership and administrative support are associated with M&Ms that address objectives related to learning and system improvement. Standardization of the structures and processes of M&Ms is perceived differently depending on participants' role and discipline, and clinician engagement is critical to support a culture of safety and quality improvement.

Organizational Learning in the Morbidity and Mortality Conference

INTRODUCTION

The focus of morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) has shifted to emphasize quality improvement and systems-level care. However, quality improvement initiatives targeting systems-level errors are challenged by learning in M&MCs, which occurs at the individual attendee level and not at the organizational level. Here, we aimed to describe how organizational learning in M&MCs is optimized by particular organizational and team cultures.

METHODS

A prospective, multiple-case study design was used. Using purposive sampling, three cases covering different medical/surgical specialties in North America were chosen. Data collection included direct observations of the M&MC, semistructured interviews with key M&MC members, and documentary information.

RESULTS

The role of the M&MC in all cases integrated two key concepts: recognition of system-wide trends and learning from error, at an organizational and team level. All cases provided evidence of double-loop learning and used organizational memory strategies to ensure knowledge was retained within the organization. A patient safety culture was linked to the promotion of open communication, fostering learning from adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study describes three cases of systems-oriented M&MCs that reflected elements of organizational learning theory. The M&MC can therefore provide a context for organizational learning, allowing optimal learning from adverse events.

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.

The Morbidity and Mortality Conference: A Century-Old Practice with Ongoing Potential for Future Improvement

OBJECTIVE

 To discuss practical strategies to consider for morbidity and mortality conferences (M&M).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 This article reflects on (i) insights that can be drawn from the M&M literature, (ii) practical aspects to consider when organizing M&M, and (iii) possible future directions for development for this long-standing practice for routine reflection.

RESULTS

 M&M offers the opportunity to learn from past cases in order to improve the care delivered to future patients, thereby serving both educational and quality improvement purposes. For departments seeking to implement or improve local M&M practice, it is difficult that a golden standard or best practice for M&M is nonexistent. This is partly because comparative research on different formats is hampered by the lack of objective outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of M&M. Common practical suggestions include the use of (i) a skillful and active moderator; (ii) structured formats for case presentation and discussion; and (iii) a dedicated committee to guide improvement plans that ensue from the meeting. M&M practice is affected by various sociological factors, for which qualitative research methods seem most suitable, but in the M&M literature these are sparsely used. Moreover, aspects influencing an open and blame-free atmosphere underline how local teams should tailor the format to best fit the local context and culture.

CONCLUSION

 This article presents practice guidance on how to organize and carry out M&M This practice for routine reflection needs to be tailored to the local setting, with attention for various sociological factors that are at play.

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.

Parent Participation in Morbidity and Mortality Review: Parent and Physician Perspectives

This study examined Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) review practices and perspectives of physicians and parents regarding parent participation in M&M review. Surveys were distributed to parents of children with a prior hospitalization for congenital heart disease (CHD) and physicians caring for pediatric CHD patients. Response distributions and Fisher’s exact tests were performed to compare parent and physician responses. Qualitative survey data were thematically analyzed. Ninety-two parent and 36 physician surveys were analyzed. Physicians reported parent input or participation was rarely sought in M&M review. Parents with direct experience of adverse events or death of their child reported providers discussed events with them in a timely manner and answered their questions; however, nearly half wished their healthcare team had done something differently during the disclosure. There was no statistical difference between groups regarding transparency ( P = .37, .79); however, there was a significant difference in perspectives regarding parental involvement in the M&M review ( P < .001). Common themes important to parents which emerged from the qualitative analysis were being adequately informed, feeling their perspectives were acknowledged and respected, having attentive and empathetic providers, and receiving consistent messaging. Although rarely included in current practice, parent participation in M&M could offer unique insight and increase accountability to proposed change elucidated by M&M review.

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.

Quality Improvement Focused Morbidity and Mortality Rounds: An Integrative Review

Morbidity and mortality conference (MMC) is a century-old tradition in medicine that was initially primarily focused on the review of surgical outcomes and errors. In recent years, the value of MMC in quality improvement (QI) and patient safety initiatives has been realized and incorporated into the MMCs of some disciplines and institutions. Despite this, there is a need for a standardized structure of MMC that emphasizes both QI and patient safety.

The purpose of this integrative review is to synthesize the literature on MMC structure that is reflective of QI and patient safety.

An integrative literature search was carried out using PubMed and MEDLINE. Abstracts were reviewed and non-relevant articles were excluded. Exclusion criteria were no mention of MMC, analysis of specific case, no focus on QI or patient safety, and non-English language.

A total of 21 articles were identified for review. Articles were reviewed in their entirety for content regarding structuring of the MMC to reflect and further develop QI and patient safety. The follwing three themes emerged that were consistently identified as being important for restructuring MMCs: (1) the importance of careful case selection, (2) the format of discussion during the conferences, and (3) the action plans reflecting QI initiatives derived from the conferences.

The review suggests that one standardized method of MMC implementation that encompasses the three pivotal themes should be developed. Further research needs to focus on instituting measures of effectiveness for the new MMC model.

Taking Morbidity and Mortality Conferences to a Next Level: The Resilience Engineering Concept

OBJECTIVE

To explore possibilities to improve morbidity and mortality conferences using advancing insights in safety science.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Mortality and Morbidity conferences (M&M) are the golden practice for case-based learning. While learning from complications is useful, M&M does not meet expectations for system-wide improvement. Resilience engineering principles may be used to improve M&M.

METHODS

After a review of the shortcomings of traditional M&M, resilience engineering principles are explored as a new way to evaluate performance. This led to the development of a new M&M format that also reviews successful outcomes, rather than only complications. This "quality assessment meeting" (QAM) is presented and the first experiences are evaluated using local observations and a survey.

RESULTS

During the QAM teams evaluate all discharged patients, addressing team resilience in terms of surgeons' ability to respond to irregularities and to monitor and learn from experiences. The meeting was feasible to implement and well received by the surgical team. Observations reveal that reflection on both complicated and uncomplicated cases strengthened team morale but also triggered reflection on the entire clinical course. The QAM serves as a tool to identify how adapting behavior led to success despite challenging conditions, so that this resilient performance can be supported.

CONCLUSIONS

The resilience engineering concept can be used to adjust M&M, in which learning is focused not only on complications but also on how successful outcomes were achieved despite ever-present challenges. This reveals the actual ratio between successful and unsuccessful outcomes, allowing to learn from both to reinforce safety-enhancing behavior.

Reuniones de morbilidad y mortalidad, ¿una estrategia de aprendizaje?

Las reuniones o conferencias de morbilidad y mortalidad (M&M), una práctica común en todo el mundo, buscan evaluar los eventos adversos y las complicaciones relacionadas con la atención médica, desde una perspectiva académica y considerando un mejoramiento en la calidad de la atención hospitalaria. Sin embargo, en nuestro país, su ejecución es un desafío metodológico debido a la dificultad para su conceptualización, implementación, evaluación de su efectividad y utilidad como herramienta educativa; al estar carente de una estructura formalizada que considere estos temas. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar su papel desde una perspectiva académica individual e institucional, considerando diferentes teorías y modelos que podrían apoyar el M&M (teoría del aprendizaje experimental, teoría de la actividad en el aprendizaje sociocultural, cultura justa, teoría de la seguridad del modelo y teoría de la segunda víctima), con el fin de responder la pregunta: ¿son las reuniones de M&M una estrategia de aprendizaje?