OBJECTIVES: To present our experience in an interdisciplinary and interprofessional morbidity and mortality conference, with special emphasis on its usefulness in improving patient safety. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary interdisciplinary neonatal PICU. PATIENTS: Morbidity and mortality conference minutes on 48 patients (newborns to 17 yr), January 2009 to June 2014. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors' PICU implemented a morbidity and mortality conference guideline in 2009 using a system-based approach to identify medical errors, their contributing factors, and possible solutions. In the subsequent 5.5 years, there were 44 mortality conferences (of 181 deaths [27%] over the same period) and four morbidity conferences. The median death/morbidity event-morbidity and mortality conference interval was 90 days (range, 7 d to 1.5 yr). The median age of patients was 4 months (range, newborn to 17 years). In six cases, the primary reason for PICU admission was a treatment complication. Unsafe processes/medical errors were identified and discussed in 37 morbidity and mortality conferences (77%). In seven cases, new autopsy findings prompted the discussion of a possible error. The 48 morbidity and mortality conferences identified 50 errors, including 30 in which an interface problem was a contributing factor. Fifty-four improvements were identified in 34 morbidity and mortality conferences. Four morbidity and mortality conferences discussed specific ethical issues. CONCLUSIONS: From our experience, we have found that the interdisciplinary and interprofessional morbidity and mortality conference has the potential to reveal unsafe processes/medical errors, in particular, diagnostic and communication errors and interface problems. When formatted as a nonhierarchical tool inviting contributions from all staff levels, the morbidity and mortality conference plays a key role in the system approach to medical errors.
OBJECTIVES: To present our experience in an interdisciplinary and interprofessional morbidity and mortality conference, with special emphasis on its usefulness in improving patient safety. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary interdisciplinary neonatal PICU. PATIENTS: Morbidity and mortality conference minutes on 48 patients (newborns to 17 yr), January 2009 to June 2014. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors' PICU implemented a morbidity and mortality conference guideline in 2009 using a system-based approach to identify medical errors, their contributing factors, and possible solutions. In the subsequent 5.5 years, there were 44 mortality conferences (of 181 deaths [27%] over the same period) and four morbidity conferences. The median death/morbidity event-morbidity and mortality conference interval was 90 days (range, 7 d to 1.5 yr). The median age of patients was 4 months (range, newborn to 17 years). In six cases, the primary reason for PICU admission was a treatment complication. Unsafe processes/medical errors were identified and discussed in 37 morbidity and mortality conferences (77%). In seven cases, new autopsy findings prompted the discussion of a possible error. The 48 morbidity and mortality conferences identified 50 errors, including 30 in which an interface problem was a contributing factor. Fifty-four improvements were identified in 34 morbidity and mortality conferences. Four morbidity and mortality conferences discussed specific ethical issues. CONCLUSIONS: From our experience, we have found that the interdisciplinary and interprofessional morbidity and mortality conference has the potential to reveal unsafe processes/medical errors, in particular, diagnostic and communication errors and interface problems. When formatted as a nonhierarchical tool inviting contributions from all staff levels, the morbidity and mortality conference plays a key role in the system approach to medical errors.
Authors: Luisa Flohr; Shaylene Beaudry; K Taneille Johnson; Nicholas West; Catherine M Burns; J Mark Ansermino; Guy A Dumont; David Wensley; Peter Skippen; Matthias Gorges Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Nicolas Michel; Bernard Bui-Xuan; Lionel Bapteste; Thomas Rimmele; Marc Lilot; François Chollet; Hélène Favre; Antoine Duclos; Philippe Michel Journal: Trials Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 2.279