Christina L Cifra1, Melania M Bembea, James C Fackler, Marlene R Miller. 1. 1Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. 2Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 3Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of a structured systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference in improving the process of reviewing and responding to adverse events in a PICU. DESIGN: Prospective time series analysis before and after implementation of a systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference. SETTING: Single tertiary referral PICU in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: Thirty-three patients discussed before and 31 patients after implementation of a systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference over a total of 20 morbidity and mortality conferences, from April 2013 to March 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference incorporating elements of medical incident analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was a significant increase in meeting attendance (mean, 12 vs 31 attendees per morbidity and mortality conference; p < 0.001) after the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference was instituted. There was no significant difference in the mean number of cases suggested (4.2 vs 4.6) or discussed (3.3 vs 3.1) per morbidity and mortality conference. There was also no significant difference in the mean number of adverse events identified per morbidity and mortality conference (3.4 vs 4.3). However, there was an increase in the proportion of cases discussed using a standard case review tool, but this did not reach statistical significance (27% vs 45%; p = 0.231). Nevertheless, we observed a significant increase in the mean number of quality improvement interventions suggested (2.4 vs 5.6; p < 0.001) and implemented (1.7 vs 4.4; p < 0.001) per morbidity and mortality conference. All adverse event categories identified had corresponding interventions suggested after the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference was instituted compared with before (80% vs 100%). Intervention-to-adverse event ratios per category were also higher (mean, 0.6 vs 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: A structured systems-oriented PICU morbidity and mortality conference incorporating elements of medical incident analysis improves the process of reviewing and responding to adverse events by significantly increasing quality improvement interventions suggested and implemented. Future work would involve testing locally adapted versions of the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference in multiple inpatient settings.
OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of a structured systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference in improving the process of reviewing and responding to adverse events in a PICU. DESIGN: Prospective time series analysis before and after implementation of a systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference. SETTING: Single tertiary referral PICU in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: Thirty-three patients discussed before and 31 patients after implementation of a systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference over a total of 20 morbidity and mortality conferences, from April 2013 to March 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference incorporating elements of medical incident analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was a significant increase in meeting attendance (mean, 12 vs 31 attendees per morbidity and mortality conference; p < 0.001) after the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference was instituted. There was no significant difference in the mean number of cases suggested (4.2 vs 4.6) or discussed (3.3 vs 3.1) per morbidity and mortality conference. There was also no significant difference in the mean number of adverse events identified per morbidity and mortality conference (3.4 vs 4.3). However, there was an increase in the proportion of cases discussed using a standard case review tool, but this did not reach statistical significance (27% vs 45%; p = 0.231). Nevertheless, we observed a significant increase in the mean number of quality improvement interventions suggested (2.4 vs 5.6; p < 0.001) and implemented (1.7 vs 4.4; p < 0.001) per morbidity and mortality conference. All adverse event categories identified had corresponding interventions suggested after the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference was instituted compared with before (80% vs 100%). Intervention-to-adverse event ratios per category were also higher (mean, 0.6 vs 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: A structured systems-oriented PICU morbidity and mortality conference incorporating elements of medical incident analysis improves the process of reviewing and responding to adverse events by significantly increasing quality improvement interventions suggested and implemented. Future work would involve testing locally adapted versions of the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference in multiple inpatient settings.
Authors: Peter J Pronovost; Christine G Holzmueller; Elizabeth Martinez; Christina L Cafeo; David Hunt; Conan Dickson; Michael Awad; Martin A Makary Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2006-02
Authors: Hanan J Aboumatar; Charles G Blackledge; Conan Dickson; Eugenie Heitmiller; Julie Freischlag; Peter J Pronovost Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Wendy H Gerstein; Judith Ledford; Jacqueline Cooper; Melissa G Lloyd; Timothy Moore; Farzana Harji; Vivian Twitty; Annette Brooks; Rosalinda C Oliver; James M Goff Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Christopher P Landrigan; Gareth J Parry; Catherine B Bones; Andrew D Hackbarth; Donald A Goldmann; Paul J Sharek Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David C Classen; Roger Resar; Frances Griffin; Frank Federico; Terri Frankel; Nancy Kimmel; John C Whittington; Allan Frankel; Andrew Seger; Brent C James Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Christina L Cifra; Kareen L Jones; Judith Ascenzi; Utpal S Bhalala; Melania M Bembea; James C Fackler; Marlene R Miller Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Andrew E Levy; Melanie D Whittington; Tyler J Anstett; Steven T Simon; Allen Wentworth; James E Carter; P Michael Ho Journal: Qual Manag Health Care Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 1.147
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