Dataset Information

Implementation status of morbidity and mortality conferences in Austrian hospitals-A cross-sectional national survey study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) are an instrument for learning from past complications, unexpected follow-ups and deaths in hospitals and are important for improving patient safety. However, there are currently no quantitative data on the implementation of M&MCs in Austria. The aim of the study was to determine the status quo of the M&MCs in Austria.

Materials and methods

A national cross-sectional study was conducted by means of a survey of 982 chief physicians of surgical disciplines, internal medicine, anesthesiology, intensive care, gynecology/obstetrics and pediatrics. The questionnaire focused on overall goals, structure and procedures of hospital M&MCs.

Results

Of the 982 contacted chief physicians, 314 (32.0%) completed the survey. Almost two thirds of the respondents, i.e. 203 (64.7%), had already implemented M&MCs. Of the 111 chief physicians who had not yet introduced M&MCs, 62 (55.9%) were interested in introducing such conferences in the future. Of the 203 respondents that had implemented M&MCs, 100 stated that their M&MC could be improved. They reported issues with "shame and blame" culture, hierarchical structures, too little knowledge about the capability of M&MC and, in particular, time constraints. Overall, the participating chief physicians showed that they are striving to improve their existing M&MCs.

Discussion/conclusion

While we found a relatively high number of already implemented M&MCs we also identified a large heterogeneity in the format of the M&MCs. A highly structured M&MC including guidelines, checklists or templates does not only considerably improve its outcome but can also alleviate the main limiting factor which is the lack of time.

SUBMITTER: Tuca AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7968694 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation status of morbidity and mortality conferences in Austrian hospitals-A cross-sectional national survey study.

Tuca Alexandru-Cristian AC Münch Johanna J Schwappach David L B DLB Borenich Andrea A Banfi Chiara C Mautner Selma S Hoffmann Magdalena M Schwarz Christine C Kamolz Lars-Peter LP Brunner Gernot G Sendlhofer Gerald G

PloS one 20210317 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) are an instrument for learning from past complications, unexpected follow-ups and deaths in hospitals and are important for improving patient safety. However, there are currently no quantitative data on the implementation of M&MCs in Austria. The aim of the study was to determine the status quo of the M&MCs in Austria.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A national cross-sectional study was conducted by means of a survey of 982 chief phys ...[more]

PMID: 33730067

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCPGs are not uniformly successful in improving care and several instances of implementation failure have been reported. Performing a comprehensive assessment of the barriers and enablers is key to developing an informed implementation strategy. Our objective was to investigate determinants of guideline implementation and explore associations of self-reported adherence to guidelines with characteristics of participants in China.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional survey, using multi-stage stratified typical sampling based on China's economic regional divisions (the East, the Middle, the West and the Northeast). 2-5 provinces were selected from each region. 2-3 cities were selected in each province, and secondary and tertiary hospitals from each city were included. We developed a questionnaire underpinned by recommended methods for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys and based on conceptual framework of guideline use, in-depth related literature analysis, guideline development manuals, related behavior change theory. Finally, multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression to produce adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).ResultsThe questionnaire consisted of four sections: knowledge of methodology for developing guidelines; barriers to accessing guideline; barriers to guideline implementation; and methods for improving guideline implementation. There were 1732 participants (87.3% response rate) from 51 hospitals. Of these, 77.2% reported to have used guidelines frequently or very frequently. The key barriers to guideline use were lack of education or training (46.2%), and overly simplistic wording or overly broad scope of recommendations (43.8%). Level of adherence to guidelines was associated with geographical regions (the northeast P < 0.001; the west P = 0.02; the middle P < 0.001 compared with the east), hospital grades (P = 0.028), length of practitioners' practice (P = 0.006), education background (Ph.D., P = 0.027; Master, P = 0.002), evidence-based medicine skills acquired in work unit (P = 0.012), and medical specialty of practitioner (General Practice, P = 0.006; Surgery, P = 0.043).ConclusionDespite general acknowledgement of the importance of guidelines, the use of guidelines was not as frequent as might have been expected. To optimize the likelihood of adherence to guidelines, guideline implementation should follow an actively developed dissemination plan incorporating features associated with adherence in our study.

Project description:BackgroundMorbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are quality improvement mechanisms during which adverse events are reviewed, often by physicians within a single discipline. There is a growing desire to include nonphysicians and physicians from other disciplines in team-based morbidity and mortality conferences (TBMMs). This mixed methods study investigates perioperative perspectives on MMCs generally and TBMMs specifically.MethodsA national survey of perioperative health care professionals, including surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses, was used to explore opinions about MMCs and TBMMs. Semistructured qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with health care professionals and leaders at a single study site. Quantitative data were compared using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Interview transcripts were inductively analyzed. Data were analyzed using a concurrent mixed methods approach, triangulating both sources of data.ResultsSurvey respondents (N = 1,466) were generally positive about both MMCs and TBMMs, agreeing that conferences were respectful, affected practice, and were educational. Nurses, compared to surgeons and anesthesiologists, were more likely to find conferences educational (p = 0.004) and were less comfortable speaking up in conferences (p < 0.001). Attendees who had more experience with TBMMs rated conferences as having significantly higher utility in achieving educational and safety goals. Qualitative data from 14 participants identified barriers and facilitators at the micro, meso, and macro level. Barriers include negative personal interactions, unsupportive leadership, and legal and regulatory issues. Facilitators include interpersonal relationships between professionals, buy-in from leadership, and external motivators.ConclusionPerceptions of TBMMs were overall positive, but significant barriers to implementation remain. Team members may be invited to the table, but more effort is needed to make the entire team feel included in the discussion and optimize the value of these conferences. Strategies for overcoming identified barriers remains an open area of research.

Dataset Information

Implementation status of morbidity and mortality conferences in Austrian hospitals-A cross-sectional national survey study.

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion/conclusion

Publications

Implementation status of morbidity and mortality conferences in Austrian hospitals-A cross-sectional national survey study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets