Dataset Information

Implementation and evaluation of a multidisciplinary systems-focused internal medicine morbidity and mortality conference.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences provide a forum for discussing adverse events and systems-based practice (SBP) issues; however, few models for implementing multidisciplinary, systems-focused M&M conferences exist. OBJECTIVE: To implement a new systems-focused M&M conference and evaluate success in focusing on adverse events and systems issues in a nonpunitive, multidisciplinary manner. METHODS: We implemented a new M&M conference into our large university-based internal medicine residency program. Using content analysis, we qualitatively analyzed audio recordings of M&M conferences from the first year of implementation (2010-2011) to determine the frequency of adverse events (injury resulting from medical care), SBP discussion, and allocation of blame. Multidisciplinary attendance was evaluated by attendance logs. Surveys assessed change in interns' perceptions of M&M conferences before and after the conference series (measured by median Likert-scale response) and trainee/faculty attitudes regarding the goal of M&M conferences. RESULTS: There were 226 attendees (66 faculty, 160 residents/fellows) at 9 M&M conferences. Average attendance per conference was 71, with representation from 16 disciplines. All M&M conferences (100%) included adverse events, SBP discussion, and lacked explicit individual blame. Interns' perceptions improved, including their belief that the M&M conference's purpose is systems improvement (4.35 versus 4.71, P = .02) and complications are discussed without blame (3.81 versus 4.34, P = .01). After experiencing M&M conferences, trainees/faculty reported favorable ratings, including beliefs that the M&M conference is important for education (97%) and the purpose is systems improvement (95%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a new systems-focused M&M conference resulted in a conference series focusing on adverse events and associated system issues in a nonpunitive, multidisciplinary context.

SUBMITTER: Gonzalo JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3963772 | biostudies-other | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveMorbidity and mortality conference (M&M) is common in emergency medicine (EM) and an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement. We aimed to characterize the prevalence of elements of EM M&M conferences that foster a strong culture of safety.MethodsEmergency medicine residents at 33 programs across the United States were surveyed using questions adapted from a previously tested survey of EM program directors and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Culture of Safety Survey.ResultsThe survey response rate was 80.3% (1,002/1,248). A total of 60.3% (601/997) of residents had not submitted a case of theirs to M&M in the past year. A total of 7.6% (73/954) reported that issues raised at M&M always led to change while 88.3% (842/954) reported that they sometimes did and 4.1% (39/954) reported that they never did. A total of 56.2% (536/954) responded that changes made due to M&M were reported back to the residents. Of residents who had cases presented at M&M, 24.2% (130/538) responded that there was regular debriefing, 65.2% (351/538) responded that there was not, and 10.6% (57/578) were unsure. A total of 10.2% (101/988) of respondents agreed that M&M was punitive, 17.4% were neutral (172/988), and 72.4% (715/988) disagreed. A total of 18.0% (178/987) of residents agreed that they felt pressure to order unnecessary tests because of M&M, 22.3% (220/987) were neutral, and 59.6% (589/987) disagreed. A total of 87.4% (862/986) felt that M&M was a valuable educational didactic session, and 78.3% (766/978) believed that M&M contributes to a culture of safety in their institution.ConclusionsWhile most residents believe that M&M is a valuable didactic session and contributes to institutional culture of safety, there are opportunities to improve by communicating changes made in response to M&M, debriefing residents who have had cases presented, and taking steps to make M&M not feel punitive to some residents.

Project description:Importance:Older patients who undergo surgery may benefit from geriatrician comanagement. It is unclear whether other internal medicine (IM) physician involvement improves outcomes for adults who undergo surgery. Objective:To evaluate the association of IM physician involvement with clinical and health system outcomes compared with usual surgical care among adults who undergo surgery. Data Sources:MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies published in English from database inception to April 2, 2019. Study Selection:Prospective randomized or nonrandomized clinical studies comparing IM physician consultation or comanagement with usual surgical care were selected by consensus of 2 reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Data were extracted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline by 2 authors independently. Intervention characteristics were described using existing indicators. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tools. Studies were pooled when appropriate in meta-analysis using random-effects models. Prespecified subgroups included IM physician-only vs multidisciplinary team interventions and patients undergoing elective vs emergency procedures. Main Outcomes and Measures:The prespecified primary outcome was length of stay; other outcomes included 30-day readmissions, inpatient mortality, medical complications, functional outcomes, and costs. Results:Of 6027 records screened, 14 studies (with 1 randomized clinical trial) involving 35 800 patients (13 142 [36.7%] in intervention groups) were eligible for inclusion. Interventions varied substantially among studies and settings; most interventions described comanagement by a hospitalist or internist; 7 (50%) included a multidisciplinary team, and 9 (64%) studied predominantly patients who had elective procedures. Risk of bias in 10 studies (71%) was serious. Meta-analysis showed no significant association with length of stay (mean difference, -1.02 days; 95% CI, -2.09 to 0.04 days; P = .06) or mortality (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.11; P = .18), but multidisciplinary team involvement was associated with significant reduction in length of stay (mean difference, -2.03 days; 95% CI, -4.05 to -0.01 days; P = .05) and mortality (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16; P = .39). Data could not be pooled for complications or costs. Only 1 study (7%) reported functional outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings of this study suggest that IM physician comanagement that includes multidisciplinary team involvement may be associated with reduced length of stay and mortality in adults undergoing surgery. Evidence was low quality, and well-designed prospective studies are still needed.

Dataset Information

Implementation and evaluation of a multidisciplinary systems-focused internal medicine morbidity and mortality conference.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets