Morbidity and mortality conference

A survey of academic internal medicine departments
  • Jay D. OrlanderEmail author
  • B. Graeme Fincke
Brief Report


This study sought to determine the prevalence and characteristics of morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) in U.S. internal medicine training programs. Two hundred ninety-five of 416 (71%) surveys were returned. Ninety percent of programs have an M&MC. Most meet monthly, have a designated leader, and entail case discussions of 3 or fewer patients. Cases are selected on the basis of unexpected bad outcomes, teaching value, and to a lesser extent, suspected medical error. Two thirds of the sites use M&MCs to meet administrative requirements for quality assurance. M&MC, while prevalent in internal medicine training programs, has a heterogeneity of focus. Hence, the goals and role of the conference, as judged by this survey, do not appear to be well defined and may warrant further clarification.

Key Words

graduate medical education medical error internal medicine training survey 


  1. 1.
    Biddle C, Oaster TR. Investigating the nature of the morbidity and mortality conference. Acad Med. 1990;65:420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell B. Surgicalmorbidity and mortality meetings. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1988;70:363–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosk CL. Forgive and Remember: Managing Medical Failure. Chicago, Ill: Chicago University Press; 1979:220.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harbison SP, Regehr G. Faculty and resident opinions regarding the role of morbidity and mortality conference. Am J Surg. 1999;177:136–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson JS, Prior MA. Quality assurance and morbidity and mortality conference. J Surg Res. 1992;52:97–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Orlander JD, Barber TW, Fincke BG. The morbidity and mortality conference: the delicate nature of learning from error. Acad Med. 2002;77:1001–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon LA. Gordon’s guide to the surgical morbidity and mortality conference. Philadelphia, Pa: Hanley and Belfus Inc.; 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu AW. Medical error: the second victim: the doctor who makes the mistake needs help too. BMJ. 2000;320:726–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bates DW, Gawande AA. Error in medicine: what have we learned? Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:763–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leape LL, Berwick DM. Safe health care: are we up to it? BMJ. 2000;320:725–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Received from the Section of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, VA Boston Health Care System, Evans Department of MedicineBoston University School of MedicineBoston
  2. 2.Center for Quality, Outcomes, and Economic ResearchEdith Nourse Rogers VA Medical CenterBedford

Personalised recommendations