International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 50, Issue 5, pp 929–938 | Cite as

Implementation and evaluation of structured nephrology morbidity and mortality conferences: a quality education report

  • Pierre Antoine Brown
  • Swapnil Hiremath
  • Edward G. Clark
  • Edmund S. H. Kwok
  • Christopher McCudden
  • Ayub Akbari
Nephrology - Original Paper

Abstract

Background

Morbidity and Mortality Conferences (M&MCs) have for generations been part of the education of physicians, yet their effectiveness remains questionable. The Ottawa M&M Model (OM3) was developed to provide a structured approach to M&MCs in order to maximize the quality improvement impact of such rounds.

Study design

We conducted a retrospective assessment of the impact of implementing nephrology-specific M&MCs using the OM3.

Setting and participants

All physicians, residents and fellows from the division of nephrology at a large academic medical center were invited to participate.

Quality improvement plan

Structured M&MCs were implemented to identify preventable errors and generate actions to improve quality of care and patient safety.

Outcomes

Number and nature of cases reviewed, number and nature of recommendations generated through identification of preventable health system and/or cognitive factors.

Measurements

Morbidity and/or mortality in each case were identified. A determination of the underlying factors and preventability of these events was made. A qualitative review of resulting recommendations was performed.

Results

Over the course of sixteen 1-h long conferences, 52 cases were presented. For all cases presented, discussion, action items and information dissemination followed the OM3. As a result of the M&MCs, 29 recommendations (emanating from 27 cases) lead to improve care delivery.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and single-center design.

Conclusions

The implementation of regularly scheduled M&MCs at an academic nephrology program, using a structured model, identified preventable health-systems issues and cognitive errors. Approximately one-half of the cases reviewed generated actions for health care delivery improvement.

Keywords

Healthcare quality improvement Morbidity and mortality rounds Medical education Patient safety 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the physicians, residents and trainees of the nephrology program at the Ottawa Hospital who contributed to the success of the M&MCs.

Author contributions

Research idea and study design: PAB, SH, AA; data acquisition: PAB, AA, SH; data analysis/interpretation: PAB, SH, CM, AA, EC; supervision and mentorship: ESHK, EC. Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting or revision and accepts accountability for the overall work by ensuring that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding

This study was not supported by external funding. SH, AA and EC receive research salary support from the Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict interest

The authors report no conflict interests.

Supplementary material

11255_2018_1842_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Deis JN, Smith KM, Warren MD et al (2008) Transforming the morbidity and mortality conference into an instrument for systemwide improvement. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA et al (eds) Advances in patient safety: New directions and alternative approaches. Culture and redesign, vol 2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43710/
  2. 2.
    Flexner A (2002) Medical education in the United States and Canada. From the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin Number Four, 1910. Bull World Health Organ 80:594–602PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orlander JD, Barber TW, Fincke BG (2002) The morbidity and mortality conference: the delicate nature of learning from error. Acad Med 77:1001–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Surgery. Chicago, IL: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2016. [Accessed 7 Dec 2016]. http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/440_general_surgery_2016.pdf
  5. 5.
    Orlander JD, Fincke BG (2003) Morbidity and mortality conference: a survey of academic internal medicine departments. J Gen Intern Med 18:656–658CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Croskerry P, Sinclair D (2001) Emergency medicine: a practice prone to error? CJEM 3:271–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ely JW, Graber ML, Croskerry P (2011) Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Acad Med 86:307–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reason J (1995) Understanding adverse events: human factors. Qual Health Care 4:80–89CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reason J (2000) Human error: models and management. BMJ 320:768–770CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carthey J (2013) Understanding safety in healthcare: the system evolution, erosion and enhancement model. J Public Health Res 2:e25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bal G, Sellier E, Tchouda SD et al (2014) Improving quality of care and patient safety through morbidity and mortality conferences. J Healthc Qual 36:29–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Higginson J, Walters R, Fulop N (2012) Mortality and morbidity meetings: an untapped resource for improving the governance of patient safety? BMJ Qual Saf 21:576–585CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calder LA, Kwok ES, Adam Cwinn A et al (2014) Enhancing the quality of morbidity and mortality rounds: the Ottawa M&M model. Acad Emerg Med 21:314–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwok ESH, Calder LA, Barlow-Krelina E, Mackie C, Seely AJE, Cwinn AA, Worthington JR, Frank JR (2017) Implementation of a structured hospital-wide morbidity and mortality rounds model. BMJ Qual Saf 26(6):439–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Leadership Program. Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa. [Accessed 11 Jan 2017]. http://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/executiveprograms/en/our-programs/11/the-improving-quality-and-patient-safety-leadership-program
  16. 16.
    Quality of Care Information Protection Act. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 2014. [Accessed 12 Dec 2016]. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/legislation/qcipa/
  17. 17.
    Pierluissi E, Fischer MA, Campbell AR et al (2003) Discussion of medical errors in morbidity and mortality conferences. JAMA 290:2838–2842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz D, Detsky AS (2016) Incorporating metacognition into morbidity and mortality rounds: the next frontier in quality improvement. J Hosp Med 11:120–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eva KW, Hatala RM, Leblanc VR et al (2007) Teaching from the clinical reasoning literature: combined reasoning strategies help novice diagnosticians overcome misleading information. Med Educ 41:1152–1158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL et al (2012) Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 21:535–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norman GR, Eva KW (2010) Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Med Educ 44:94–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Epstein NE (2012) Morbidity and mortality conferences: their educational role and why we should be there. Surg Neurol Int 3:S377–S388CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomas MK, McDonald RJ, Foley EF et al (2012) Educational value of morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences: are minor complications important? J Surg Educ 69:326–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boysen PG 2nd (2013) Just culture: a foundation for balanced accountability and patient safety. Ochsner J 13:400–406PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stewart DA, Junn J, Adams MA et al (2016) House staff participation in patient safety reporting: identification of predominant barriers and implementation of a pilot program. South Med J 109:395–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nephrology, Department of MedicineUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Kidney Research CentreOttawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Division of BiochemistryThe Ottawa HospitalOttawaCanada
  5. 5.Division of NephrologyThe Ottawa HospitalOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations