OBJECTIVE: To identify the defence mechanisms manifested by medical staff which could disturb the decision making, revealed by professionals of human science (PHS) in morbidity and mortality conferences (MMC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Application of two methods of psychological interventionin MMC, conducted between March 1st, 2009 and November 30, 2010, in 20 randomized maternity among five perinatal networks: the method of inter-active problem solving targeted at the functioning of the teams and the method for developing professional practice centred on individual. The data collection was realized during analyse of case in MMC, with note-taking by two pair PHS. The oral expressions of RMM' participant were secondarily re-written, analyzed and classed by theme. RESULTS: Fifty-four MMC were performed. The mechanisms of defence have been identified by PHS intervention in MMC: denial of situation, pact of denegation, rift and overprotection. They were be identified by two PHS intervention methods, this consolidates these results. This intervention began staff medical to transformation at different level, in particular to improve the capacity of cooperation. CONCLUSION: The identification of the mechanisms of defence in MMC enables staff medical to improve communication and quality relationship between healthcare professionals. This could constitute an actual factor of practices improvement. However, complementary studies must be performed to confirm this hypothesis.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To identify the defence mechanisms manifested by medical staff which could disturb the decision making, revealed by professionals of human science (PHS) in morbidity and mortality conferences (MMC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Application of two methods of psychological intervention in MMC, conducted between March 1st, 2009 and November 30, 2010, in 20 randomized maternity among five perinatal networks: the method of inter-active problem solving targeted at the functioning of the teams and the method for developing professional practice centred on individual. The data collection was realized during analyse of case in MMC, with note-taking by two pair PHS. The oral expressions of RMM' participant were secondarily re-written, analyzed and classed by theme. RESULTS: Fifty-four MMC were performed. The mechanisms of defence have been identified by PHS intervention in MMC: denial of situation, pact of denegation, rift and overprotection. They were be identified by two PHS intervention methods, this consolidates these results. This intervention began staff medical to transformation at different level, in particular to improve the capacity of cooperation. CONCLUSION: The identification of the mechanisms of defence in MMC enables staff medical to improve communication and quality relationship between healthcare professionals. This could constitute an actual factor of practices improvement. However, complementary studies must be performed to confirm this hypothesis.