The Impact of Anonymity in Emergency Medicine Morbidity and Mortality Conferences: Findings from a National Survey of Resident Physicians

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.

Making the most of a Morbidity and Mortality meeting

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and Mortality meetings (M&Ms) are a fundamental element of surgical practice. However, there has been little investigation into best practices, to maximise education and improvement outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Create a new, evidence-based M&M methodology, that facilitates standardised analysis of errors in a non-judgemental fashion, and highlights areas for improvement.

METHODS

A Quality Improvement (QI) methodology was used. This project encompassed a literature review and two sequential QI cycles. A literature review and initial survey highlighted best practice and identified areas for improvement. From this information, a new standardised format was created, which centred around a new modified Fishbone framework, incorporating the London Protocol methodology. The project then sequentially tested new formats, with feedback collected for every new format.

RESULTS

The literature review and surveys guided improvement of the M&M. The need for standardisation was highlighted. The new PowerPoint template and modified Fishbone ensured presentations and analysis were consistent and systematic. Participants reported that M&Ms were more engaging, interactive and structured, ensuring improved discussion of errors. The modified Fishbone framework reinforced a blame-free, system-focused analysis.

CONCLUSION

M&Ms are a critical aspect of patient safety. This project utilised simple QI tools to encourage collaborative reflection, learning and improvement.

Two-Year Profile of Preventable Errors in Hospital-Based Neurology

Background and Objectives:

Medical errors are estimated to cause 7,000 deaths and cost 17-29 billion USD per year, but there is a lack of published real-world data on preventable errors, in particular in hospital-based neurology. We sought to characterize the profile of errors that occur on the inpatient neurology services at our institution in order to inform strategies on future error prevention.

Methods:

We reviewed all cases of preventable errors occurring on the inpatient neurology services from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020, logged in institutional error reporting systems and reviewed at departmental morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MC). Each case was characterized by primary category of error, level of harm as determined by the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) Common Format Harm Scale version 1.2, primary intervention, and recurrence within one year, with a final censoring date of June 30, 2021.

Results:

Of 72 cases, 43 (60%) were attributed to errors in clinical decision-making and 20 (28%) to systems or electronic health record-related errors. The majority of cases resulted in in-conference education on systems-based errors (29%) at departmental M&MCs followed by in-conference education on clinical neurology (25%). Among errors classified primarily as clinical, 28% were addressed via systems-based interventions including in-conference education on systems issues and changes in written protocol. In 23 cases (32%), a similar error recurred within one year of the presentation. In total, 7 cases (10%) resulted in a change in written protocol, none with recurrences.

Discussion:

Systems-based interventions may reduce both clinical and systems-based errors, and protocol changes are effective when feasible. Given the important goal of optimizing care for every patient, quality leaders should conduct continuous audits of preventable errors and quality improvement systems in their clinical areas.