BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The value of the morbidity and mortality conference (M&MC) has received little examination in the primary care literature. We sought to understand the educational content of M&MCs by examining data from a family medicine training program. METHODS: Archived morbidity and mortality conference data (July 2001-July 2003) were retrieved from two University of Michigan family medicine adult inpatient services (one community based and one university based). We used chi-square and t test to compare demographic variables and adverse events between hospital sites. We qualitatively analyzed written comments about adverse events. RESULTS: Both family medicine services shared similar diagnoses, patient volume, length of stay, and gender distribution of patients, but the community hospital had an older average patient age (67.9 years versus 52.9 years) and a higher outpatient complication rate. Analysis of the qualitative data revealed patterns of adverse events, such as an association between avoidable admissions and inadequate pain control, that could be improved through educational intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although family medicine residents' experiences in university and community hospitals were comparable, there were differences in patient populations and case complexity. Modifying the M&MC format could enhance its effectiveness as an educational tool about adverse events.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The value of the morbidity and mortality conference (M&MC) has received little examination in the primary care literature. We sought to understand the educational content of M&MCs by examining data from a family medicine training program. METHODS: Archived morbidity and mortality conference data (July 2001-July 2003) were retrieved from two University of Michigan family medicine adult inpatient services (one community based and one university based). We used chi-square and t test to compare demographic variables and adverse events between hospital sites. We qualitatively analyzed written comments about adverse events. RESULTS: Both family medicine services shared similar diagnoses, patient volume, length of stay, and gender distribution of patients, but the community hospital had an older average patient age (67.9 years versus 52.9 years) and a higher outpatient complication rate. Analysis of the qualitative data revealed patterns of adverse events, such as an association between avoidable admissions and inadequate pain control, that could be improved through educational intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although family medicine residents' experiences in university and community hospitals were comparable, there were differences in patient populations and case complexity. Modifying the M&MC format could enhance its effectiveness as an educational tool about adverse events.