Morbidity and Mortality Conference in Emergency Medicine Residencies and the Culture of Safety

Goals of Morbidity and Mortality meetings in paediatric acute care. A qualitative case study

Morbidity and Mortality meetings are conducted in varied clinical contexts including paediatrics. Widely cited as an educational or quality improvement tool, the reality is more complex. In this qualitative study, the aim was to explore the perceived goals of the paediatric acute care Morbidity and Morbidity meeting. This study used semi-structured interviews and observation within a qualitative case study methodology. Data were collected in a large paediatric quaternary hospital. Analysis generated themes related to meeting observations and the participant's interpretation of meeting goals. A total of 44 interviews were conducted with 14 nurses, 29 doctors, and 1 allied health professional. Thirty-two meetings in six clinical departments were observed. Two themes were developed: complex and nuanced goals; and tensions and contest between and within goals. Meeting goals to evaluate care, learn, support, adhere, and change and respond were sometimes in competition and had varied interpretations. Morbidity and Mortality meetings in this setting are valued and occupy a complex role which reaches beyond identification of measurable patient safety interventions. Understanding goals more fully can lead to optimised conduct and meaningful measurement of efficacy. The strength in these meetings may be the way they promote an embedded safety culture, and an informed and skilled workforce.

Reframing the Morbidity and Mortality Conference: The Impact of a Just Culture

ABSTRACT

Morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences are prevalent in all fields of medicine. Historically, they arose out a desire to improve medical care. Nevertheless, the goals of M&M conferences are often poorly defined, at odds with one another, and do not support a just culture. We differentiate among the various possible goals of an M&M and review the literature for strategies that have been shown to achieve these goals. Based on the literature, we outline an ideal M&M structure within the context of just culture: The process starts with robust adverse event and near miss reporting, followed by careful case selection, excluding cases solely attributable to individual error. Prior to the M&M, the case should be openly discussed with involved members and should be reviewed using a selected framework. The goal of the M&M should be selected and clearly defined, and the presentation format and rules of conduct should all conform to the selected presentation goal. The audience should ideally be multidisciplinary and multispecialty. The M&M should conclude with concrete tasks and assigned follow-up. The entire process should be conducted in a peer review protected format within an environment promoting psychological safety. We conclude with future directions for M&Ms.

The emergency department trigger tool: Multicenter trigger query validation

OBJECTIVES

We previously described derivation and validation of the emergency department trigger tool (EDTT) for adverse event (AE) detection. As the first step in our multicenter study of the tool, we validated our computerized screen for triggers against manual review, establishing our use of this automated process for selecting records to review for AEs.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of visits to three urban, academic EDs over 18 months by patients ≥ 18 years old. We reviewed 912 records: 852 with at least one of 34 triggers found by the query and 60 records with none. Two first-level reviewers per site each manually screened for triggers. After completion, computerized query results were revealed, and reviewers could revise their findings. Second-level reviewers arbitrated discrepancies. We compare automated versus manual screening by positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs), present population trigger frequencies, proportions of records triggered, and how often manual ratings were changed to conform with the query.

RESULTS

Trigger frequencies ranged from common (>25%) to rare (1/1000) were comparable at U.S. sites and slightly lower at the Canadian site. Proportions of triggered records ranged from 31% to 49.4%. Overall query PPV was 95.4%; NPV was 99.2%. PPVs for individual trigger queries exceeded 90% for 28-31 triggers/site and NPVs were >90% for all but three triggers at one site. Inter-rater reliability was excellent, with disagreement on manual screening results less than 5% of the time. Overall, reviewers amended their findings 1.5% of the time when discordant with query findings, more often when the query was positive than when negative (47% vs. 23%).

CONCLUSIONS

The EDTT trigger query performed very well compared to manual review. With some expected variability, trigger frequencies were similar across sites and proportions of triggered records ranged 31%-49%. This demonstrates the feasibility and generalizability of implementing the EDTT query, providing a solid foundation for testing the triggers' utility in detecting AEs.

Systematic Review of Morbidity and Mortality Meeting Standardization: Does It Lead to Improved Professional Development, System Improvements, Clinician Engagement, and Enhanced Patient Safety Culture?

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to better understand the effect of standardized Morbidity and Mortality meetings (M&Ms) on learning, system improvement, clinician engagement, and patient safety culture.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched using a range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings to identify the major concepts of M&M meetings. Articles published between October 2012 (the end date of an earlier review) and February 2021 were assessed against the inclusion criteria, and thematic synthesis was conducted on the included studies.

RESULTS

After abstract and full-text review in Covidence, from 824 studies identified, 16 met the eligibility criteria. Studies were mostly surveys (n = 13) and evaluated effectiveness primarily from the perspectives of M&M chairs and participants, rather than assessment of objective improvement in patient outcomes. The most prevalent themes relating to the standardization of M&M processes were case selection (n = 15) and administration (n = 12). The objectives of quality improvement and education were equally prevalent (12 studies each), but several studies reported that these 2 objectives as conflicting rather than complementary. Clinician engagement, patient safety culture, and organizational governance and leadership were identified as facilitators of effective M&Ms.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to guide best practice in M&Ms, but standardized structures and processes implemented with organizational leadership and administrative support are associated with M&Ms that address objectives related to learning and system improvement. Standardization of the structures and processes of M&Ms is perceived differently depending on participants' role and discipline, and clinician engagement is critical to support a culture of safety and quality improvement.

Goals of the Morbidity and Mortality meeting in acute care: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe what is known about understandings of the goals of the Morbidity and Mortality meeting.

REVIEW METHODS USED

The study utilised scoping review methodology.

DATA SOURCES

Papers in English presenting empirical data published in academic journals with Morbidity and Mortality meetings as the central concept of study. Included papers presented data about the perception of stakeholders about goals of the Morbidity and Mortality meeting. Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases were search conducted from earliest record - October 20th 2021. A manual search of the reference lists of all included papers identified further eligible papers.

REVIEW METHODS

Data about the location, participant type, and methods/ methodology were extracted and entered onto a database. Content analysis of the results and discussion sections of qualitative papers yielded broad categories of meeting goal. This provided a framework for the organisation of the quantitative findings, which were subsequently extracted and charted under these categories.

RESULTS

Twenty-five papers were included in the review, and six main categories were identified in the qualitative synthesis of findings. These included meeting goals related to quality and safety, education, legal and reputational risk management, professional culture, family/caregivers, and peer support.

CONCLUSIONS

There are heterogeneous understandings of key terminologies used to describe Morbidity and Mortality meeting goals, particularly evident within understandings of educational and quality and safety meeting goals. This paper defines and unravels this complexity in a way that researchers and clinicians can define, compare and evaluate their own department's meeting goals.

Defining a High-Quality and Effective Morbidity and Mortality Conference: A Systematic Review

Importance

Morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are thought to advance trainee education, quality improvement (QI), and faculty development. However, there is considerable variability with regard to their completion.

Objective

To compile and analyze the literature describing the format, design, and other attributes of MMCs that appear to best advance their stated objectives related to QI and practitioner education.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, a literature search with terms combining conference and QI or morbidity and mortality was performed in January 2022, using the PubMed, Embase, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) databases with no date restrictions. Included studies were published in English and described surgical or nonsurgical MMCs with explicit reference to quality or system improvement, education, professional development, or patient outcomes; these studies were classified by design as survey based, intervention based, or other methodologies. For survey-based studies, positively and negatively regarded attributes of conference design, format, and completion were extracted. For intervention-based studies, details of the intervention and their impact on stated MMC objectives were abstracted. Principal study findings were summarized for the other group. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction and analysis were completed between January 2022 and December 2022.

Findings

A total of 59 studies met appropriateness for study inclusion. The mean MERSQI score for the included studies was 6.7 (range, 5.0-9.5) of a maximum possible 18, which implied that the studies were of average quality. The evidence suggested that preparation and postconference follow-up regarding QI initiatives are equally as important as both (1) succinctly presenting case details, opportunities for improvement, and educational topics and (2) creating a constructive space for accountability, engagement, and multistakeholder discussion.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the published literature on MMCs provides substantial insight into the optimal format, design, and related attributes of an effective MMC. This systematic review provides a road map for surgical departments to improve MMCs in order to align their format and design with their principal objectives related to practitioner and trainee education, error prevention, and QI.

Good Saves: How Emergency Medicine Residents are Learning From Success

INTRODUCTION

 The practice of learning from medical errors is well-established and well-researched in the literature on morbidity and mortality conferences. However, durable learning from case-based education occurs not only through the analysis of medical errors but also through the evaluation of how critical decisions were made to result in a positive clinical outcome, what we will call a "good save." The aim of the current study is to provide an overview of how US-based emergency medicine residencies are teaching using "good saves."

METHODS

A national survey of emergency medicine (EM) residency leadership was distributed through the Council of Residency Directors (CORD) and the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) listservs. A descriptive analysis of the results was undertaken.

RESULTS

Residency leadership representing 67 different US EM training programs participated in our survey. Of these, only 19 programs use formal learning objectives and dedicated education time to teach from "good saves." Thirty-six programs provide informal recognition, often in the form of a "shout-out." Residency leadership is motivated to provide this recognition and learning through efforts to promote wellness and resiliency among EM residents. Notably, the use of prizes and awards is not necessary.

DISCUSSION

Some EM residencies in the United States are making targeted efforts to promote the recognition of successful clinical care. This recognition and education are being used as tools both to promote wellness and to teach resiliency. However, there is wide heterogeneity in approaches. Our survey provides examples of the many ways that "good saves" can be incorporated into any EM residency curriculum with the potential for significant impact.

A Survey-Based Assessment of the Practices Governing Morbidity and Mortality Conferences and the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences are essential components for resident education and provide a valuable tool to improve patient safety and quality of care. M&M conferences help identify important gaps in safety and reduce avoidable events in future patient care. Active methods to improve the utilization of M&M conferences have been shown to enhance their educational value for residents, faculty and multidisciplinary teams in healthcare institutions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use a survey-based methodology to assess how morbidity and mortality conferences are conducted in residency programs, including characteristics such as frequency, involvement of personnel and the effects of COVID-19.

METHODS

From February to October 2021, a validated 19 question survey was electronically distributed to residency program directors in anesthesiology, emergency medicine and general surgery, after a search for email addresses in the ACGME database. The survey was created and hosted on Google Forms.

RESULTS

A total of 125 of 713 program directors (17.5%) responded to the survey. Eighty-three percent of respondent programs reported mandatory participation for residents, with residents providing most of the presentations. Case presentations utilized various formats including SBAR, adverse event analysis and root cause analysis as the most common modalities. Though most programs reported no change in frequency of M&M conferences due to COVID-19, most respondents reported a shift to a virtual or hybrid platform.

CONCLUSION

M&M conferences are an important educational and quality improvement modality, and many residency directors changed practice to incorporate virtual platforms due to the COVID-19 pandemic to maintain uninterrupted educational sessions. Nonetheless, significant variation still exists in how these conferences are conducted between different institutions.

Use of e-triggers to identify diagnostic errors in the paediatric ED

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors (DxEs) are an understudied source of patient harm in children rarely captured in current adverse event reporting systems. Applying electronic triggers (e-triggers) to electronic health records shows promise in identifying DxEs but has not been used in the emergency department (ED) setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the performance of an e-trigger and subsequent manual screening for identifying probable DxEs among children with unplanned admission following a prior ED visit and to compare performance to existing incident reporting systems.

DESIGN/METHODS

Retrospective single-centre cohort study of children ages 0-22 admitted within 14 days of a previous ED visit between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019. Subjects were identified by e-trigger, screened to identify cases where index visit and hospital discharge diagnoses were potentially related but pathophysiologically distinct, and then these screened-in cases were reviewed for DxE using the SaferDx Instrument. Cases of DxE identified by e-trigger were cross-referenced against existing institutional incident reporting systems.

RESULTS

An e-trigger identified 1915 unplanned admissions (7.7% of 24 849 total admissions) with a preceding index visit. 453 (23.7%) were screened in and underwent review using SaferDx. 92 cases were classified as likely DxEs, representing 0.4% of all hospital admissions, 4.8% among those selected by e-trigger and 20.3% among those screened in for review. Half of cases were reviewed by two reviewers using SaferDx with substantial inter-rater reliability (Cohen's κ=0.65 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.75)). Six (6.5%) cases had been reported elsewhere: two to the hospital's incident reporting system and five to the ED case review team (one reported to both).

CONCLUSION

An e-trigger coupled with manual screening enriched a cohort of patients at risk for DxEs. Fewer than 10% of DxEs were identified through existing surveillance systems, suggesting that they miss a large proportion of DxEs. Further study is required to identify specific clinical presentations at risk of DxEs.

Making the most of a Morbidity and Mortality meeting

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and Mortality meetings (M&Ms) are a fundamental element of surgical practice. However, there has been little investigation into best practices, to maximise education and improvement outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Create a new, evidence-based M&M methodology, that facilitates standardised analysis of errors in a non-judgemental fashion, and highlights areas for improvement.

METHODS

A Quality Improvement (QI) methodology was used. This project encompassed a literature review and two sequential QI cycles. A literature review and initial survey highlighted best practice and identified areas for improvement. From this information, a new standardised format was created, which centred around a new modified Fishbone framework, incorporating the London Protocol methodology. The project then sequentially tested new formats, with feedback collected for every new format.

RESULTS

The literature review and surveys guided improvement of the M&M. The need for standardisation was highlighted. The new PowerPoint template and modified Fishbone ensured presentations and analysis were consistent and systematic. Participants reported that M&Ms were more engaging, interactive and structured, ensuring improved discussion of errors. The modified Fishbone framework reinforced a blame-free, system-focused analysis.

CONCLUSION

M&Ms are a critical aspect of patient safety. This project utilised simple QI tools to encourage collaborative reflection, learning and improvement.

Investigating Global Spatial Patterns of Diarrhea-Related Mortality in Children Under Five

Objective

Investigating the trends of child diarrhea-related mortality (DRM) is crucial to tracking and monitoring the progress of its prevention and control efforts worldwide. This study explores the spatial patterns of diarrhea-related mortality in children under five for monitoring and designing effective intervention programs.

Methods

The data used in this study was obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO) public dataset that contained data from 195 countries from the year 2000 to 2017. This dataset contained 13,541,989 DRM cases. The worldwide spatial pattern of DRM was analyzed at the country level utilizing geographic information system (GIS) software. Moran's I, Getis-Ord Gi, Mean center, and Standard Deviational Ellipse (SDE) techniques were used to conduct the spatial analysis.

Results

The spatial pattern of DRM was clustered all across the world during the study period from 2000 to 2017. The results revealed that Asian and African countries had the highest incidence of DRM worldwide. The findings from the spatial modeling also revealed that the focal point of death from diarrhea was mainly in Asian countries until 2010, and this focus shifted to Africa in 2011.

Conclusion

DRM is common among children who live in Asia and Africa. These concentrations may also be due to differences in knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding diarrhea. Through GIS analysis, the study was able to map the distribution of DRM in temporal and spatial dimensions and identify the hotspots of DRM across the globe.

A SURVEY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGISTS REGARDING THE USE OF MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY CONFERENCING IN DEPARTMENTAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGAMS

PURPOSE

Investigate the degree to which Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) conferencing is utilized in Interventional Radiology (IR), identify impediments to its adoption, and assess the experience of those using this tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Members of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) were offered a 10-question survey of practices and experiences regarding M&M conferencing within their Quality Assessment (QA) programs.

RESULTS

Among 604 respondents, 37.8% were university-based practitioners and 60% from outside of university practices. 43% of respondents reported practicing 100% IR, with 28.5% practicing 75-99% and 11% practicing IR less than 50% of the time. The use of M&M conferencing was significantly greater in university practices (90.7%) than in non-university practices (37.1%) and among practitioners performing at least 75% IR (71.2%) than among those practicing less than 75% (28.8%). Conferences were held monthly (66.6%) or more often and the majority (56%) of the events identified were scored using the SIR severity score. Roughly 20% of M&M conferences were multidisciplinary, shared most commonly with vascular surgery. The reasons cited for not using M&M included lack of time and the logistical challenges of the process. However, among those who participate in M&M conferences, the QA goals of the conference were met at very high rates.

CONCLUSIONS

M&M conferencing is well established in university IR programs and among full-time practitioners, but much less so elsewhere. For those sites that do not utilize M&M conferencing, there may be considerable benefit to addressing the obstacles that are limiting their implementation of this tool.

The Emergency Department Trigger Tool: Validation and Testing to Optimize Yield

OBJECTIVE

Recognized as a premier approach for adverse event (AE) detection, trigger tools have been developed for multiple clinical settings outside the emergency department (ED). We recently derived and tested an ED trigger tool (EDTT) with enhanced features for high-yield detection of harm, consisting of 30 triggers associated with AEs. In this study, we validate the EDTT in an independent sample and compare record selection approaches to optimize yield for quality improvement.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study using data from 13 months of visits to an urban, academic ED by patients aged ≥ 18 years (92,859 records). We conducted standard two-tiered trigger tool reviews on an independent validation sample of 3,724 records with at least one of the 30 triggers found associated with AEs in our previous derivation sample (N = 1,786). We also tested three new candidate triggers and reviewed 72 records with no triggers for comparison purposes. We compare derivation and validation samples on: 1) triggers showing persistent associations with AEs, 2) AE yield (AEs detected/records reviewed), and 3) representativeness of AE types detected. We use bivariate associations of triggers with AEs as the basis for trigger selection. We then use multivariable modeling in the combined derivation and validation samples to determine AE risk scores using trigger weights. This allows us to predict occurrence of AEs and derive population prevalence estimates. Finally, we compare yield for detection of AEs under three record selection strategies (random selection, trigger counts, weighted trigger counts).

RESULTS

Twenty-four of the 30 triggers were confirmed to be associated with AEs on bivariate testing. Three previously marginal triggers and two of three new candidate triggers were also found to be associated with AEs. The presence of any of these 29 triggers was associated with an AE rate of 10% in our selected sample (compared to 1.1% for none, p < 0.001). The risk of an AE increased with number of triggers. Combining data from both phases, we identified 461 AEs in 429 unique visits in 5,582 records reviewed. Our multivariable model (which emphasized parsimony) retained 12 triggers with a ROC AUC of 82% in both samples. Selecting records for review based on number of triggers improves yield to 14% for 4+ triggers (top 10% of visits) and to 28% for 8+ (top 1%). A weighted trigger count has corresponding yields of 18 and 38%. The method for selecting records for review did not appear to affect event-type representativeness, with similar distributions of event types and severities detected.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-site study of the EDTT we observed high levels of validity in trigger selection, yield, and representativeness of AEs, with yields that are superior to estimates for traditional approaches to AE detection. Record selection using weighted triggers outperforms a trigger count threshold approach and far outperforms random sampling from records with at least one trigger. The EDTT is a promising efficient and high-yield approach for detecting all-cause harm to guide quality improvement efforts in the ED.

Point-of-care Ultrasound in Morbidity and Mortality Cases in Emergency Medicine: Who Benefits the Most?

Introduction

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an essential tool in the timely evaluation of an undifferentiated patient in the emergency department (ED). Our primary objective in this study was to determine the perceived impact of POCUS in high-risk cases presented at emergency medicine (EM) morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences. Additionally, we sought to identify in which types of patients POCUS might be most useful, and which POCUS applications were considered to be highest yield.

Methods

This was a retrospective survey of cases submitted to M&M at an EM residency program that spans two academic EDs, over one academic year. Postgraduate year 4 (PGY) residents who presented M&M cases at departmental sessions were surveyed on perceived impacts of POCUS on individual patient outcomes. We evaluated POCUS use and indications while the POCUS was used.

Results

Over the 12-month period, we reviewed 667 cases from 18 M&M sessions by 15 PGY-4 residents and a supervising EM attending physician who chairs the M&M committee. Of these cases, 75 were selected by the M&M committee for review and presentation. POCUS was used in 27% (20/75) of the cases and not used in 73% (55/75). In cases where POCUS was not used, retrospective review determined that if POCUS had been used it would have “likely prevented the M&M” in 45% (25/55). Of these 25 cases, the majority of POCUS applications that could have helped were cardiac (32%, 8/25) and lung (32%, 8/25) ultrasound. POCUS was felt to have greatest potential in identifying missed diagnoses (92%, 23/25), and decreasing the time to diagnosis (92%, 23/25). Patients with cardiopulmonary chief complaints and abnormal vital signs were most likely to benefit. There were seven cases (35%, 7/20, 95% CI 15–59%) in which POCUS was performed and thought to have possibly adversely affected the outcome of the M&M.

Conclusion

POCUS was felt to have the potential to reduce or prevent M&M in 45% of cases in which it was not used. Cardiac and lung POCUS were among the most useful applications, especially in patients with cardiopulmonary complaints and in those with abnormal vital signs.

Evolving from Morbidity and Mortality to a Case-based Error Reduction Conference: Evidence-based Best Practices from the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors

Morbidity and mortality conferences are common among emergency medicine residency programs and are an important part of quality improvement initiatives. Here we review the key components of running an effective morbidity and mortality conference with a focus on goals and objectives, case identification and selection, session structure, and case presentation.

A Narrative Review of Strategies to Increase Patient Safety Event Reporting by Residents

BACKGROUND

Because residents are often on the frontlines of patient care and are likely to witness adverse events firsthand, it is critical they report patient safety events. They may, however, be underreporting.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the current literature to identify strategies to increase patient safety event reporting by residents.

METHODS

We used CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, MA), EMBASE (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), PsycINFO (APA Publishing, Washington, DC), and PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD) databases. The search was limited to English-language articles published in peer-reviewed journals through March 2020. Key terms included "residents, trainees, fellows, interns, graduate medical education, house staff, event reporting, patient safety reporting, incident reporting, adverse event, and medical error." To organize findings, we adapted a published framework of strategies for encouraging self-protective behavior.

RESULTS

We identified 68 articles that described strategies used to increase event reporting. The most sustainable interventions used a combination of 3 of the 5 strategies: behavior modeling, surveys and messaging, and required limited financial support. The survey creates awareness; the behavior modeling is critical for educational purposes, and the reminders help to reinforce the new behavior and embed it into routine patient care activities. We noted a dearth of studies involving trainees in root cause analysis following submission of event reports.

CONCLUSIONS

The most successful sustainable interventions were those that combined strategies that minimized time for busy physicians, incorporated accessible event reporting in already existing medical records, and became part of a normal workflow in patient care.

The Impact of Anonymity in Emergency Medicine Morbidity and Mortality Conferences: Findings from a National Survey of Resident Physicians

Introduction

Although the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates structured case review and discussion as a part of residency training, there remains little guidance on how best to structure these conferences to cultivate a culture of safety, promote learning, and ensure that system-based improvements can be made. We hypothesized that anonymous case discussion was associated with a more effective, and less punitive, morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference. Secondarily, we were interested in determining whether this core structural element was correlated with the culture of safety at an institution.

Methods

We conducted a national survey at 33 emergency medicine residency programs evaluating residents’ perceptions of M&M and the culture of safety at their institutions. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses. We summarized Likert scores using mean and 95% confidence intervals. We also performed content analysis of the free-text comments and report on the themes identified.

Results

There were 1248 residents at the 33 programs surveyed. Of the 1002 who replied (80.3% response rate), 231 respondents reported anonymous case presentations and 744 reported non-anonymous case presentations. Residents at programs with anonymous case presentations were more likely to report that M&M was non-punitive. There were no other significant differences between anonymous and non-anonymous case presentations on any of the culture of safety domains measured. When these comments were systematically analyzed and coded, we found that the comments related to anonymity were both positive and negative. Among the themes identified were anonymity’s impact on punitive response to error, the ability to learn from cases, and professional responsibility.

Conclusion

Anonymous M&Ms are associated with a perception of a less-punitive M&M and with better ratings in several conference-specific outcomes; however, there appears to be no association between the other Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality culture of safety scores and anonymity in M&M.

The Emergency Department Trigger Tool: A Novel Approach to Screening for Quality and Safety Events

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Trigger tools improve surveillance for harm by focusing reviews on records with "triggers" whose presence increases the likelihood of an adverse event. We refine and automate a previously developed emergency department (ED) trigger tool and present record selection strategies to further optimize yield.

METHODS

We specified 97 triggers for extraction from our electronic medical record, identifying 76,894 ED visits with greater than or equal to 1 trigger. We reviewed 1,726 records with greater than or equal to 1 trigger, following a standard trigger tool review process. We validated query performance against manual review and evaluated individual triggers, retaining only those associated with adverse events in the ED. We explored 2 approaches to enhance record selection: on number of triggers present and using trigger weights derived with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression.

RESULTS

The automated query performed well compared with manual review (sensitivity >70% for 80 triggers; specificity >92% for all). Review yielded 374 adverse events (21.6 adverse events per 100 records). Thirty triggers were associated with risk of harm in the ED. An estimated 10.3% of records with greater than 1 of these triggers would include an adverse event in the ED. Selecting only records with greater than or equal to 4 or greater than or equal to 9 triggers improves yield to 17% and 34.8%, respectively, whereas use of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator trigger weighting enhances the yield to as high as 52%.

CONCLUSION

The ED trigger tool is a promising approach to improve yield, scope, and efficiency of review for all-cause harm in emergency medicine. Beginning with a broad set of candidate triggers, we validated a computerized query that eliminates the need for manual screening for triggers and identified a refined set of triggers associated with adverse events in the ED. Review efficiency can be further enhanced with enhanced record selection.

Mortality and morbidity rounds (MMR) in pathology: relative contribution of cognitive bias vs. systems failures to diagnostic error

Background Heuristics and cognitive biases are thought to play an important role in diagnostic medical error. How to systematically determine and capture these kinds of errors remains unclear. Morbidity and mortality rounds (MMRs) are generally focused on reducing medical error by identifying and correcting systems failures. However, they may also provide an educational platform for recognizing and raising awareness on cognitive errors. Methods A total of 49 MMR cases spanning the period 2008-2015 in our pathology department were examined for the presence of cognitive errors and/or systems failures by eight study participant raters who were trained on a subset of 16 of these MMR cases (excluded from the main study analysis) to identify such errors. The Delphi method was used to obtain group consensus on error classification on the remaining 33 study cases. Cases with <75% inter-rater agreement were subjected to subsequent rounds of Delphi analysis. Inter-rater agreement at each round was determined by Fleiss' kappa values. Results Thirty-six percent of the cases presented at our pathology MMRs over an 8-year period were found to contain errors likely due to cognitive bias. Conclusions These data suggest that the errors identified in our pathology MMRs represent not only systems failures but may also be composed of a significant proportion of cognitive errors. Teaching trainees and health professionals to correctly identify different types of cognitive errors may present an opportunity for quality improvement interventions in the interests of patient safety.

Non-clinical rounds in hospital settings: a scoping review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to systematically describe the types of non-clinical rounds implemented in hospital settings.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

This scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA. The review followed the four stages of conducting scoping review as defined by Arskey and O'Malley (2005).

FINDINGS

Initially, 978 articles were identified through database search from which only 24 studies were considered relevant and included in the final review. Overall, eight types of non-clinical rounds were identified (death rounds, grand rounds, morbidity and mortality conferences, multidisciplinary rounds, patient safety rounds, patient safety huddles, walkarounds and Schwartz rounds) that independently of their format, goal, participants and type of outcomes aimed to enhance patient safety and improve quality of healthcare delivery in hospital settings, either by focusing on physician, patient or organizational system.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the authors' knowledge this is the first review that aims to provide a comprehensive summary to the types of non-clinical rounds that has been applied in clinical settings.

Emergency medicine residency training in Africa: overview of curriculum

BACKGROUND

Emergency Medicine (EM) is a rapidly developing specialty in Africa with several emergency medicine residency-training programs (EMRPs) established across the continent over the past decade. Despite rapid proliferation of the specialty, little is known about emergency care curriculum structure and content. We provide an overview of Africa's EMRPs.

METHODS

This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey conducted of EMRPs in Africa between January 2017 and December 2017. Data were prospectively collected using a structured survey that was developed and administered through online data capture software, REDCap (Version 7.2.2, Vanderbilt, Nashville, TN, USA). Survey questions focused on curriculum structure and design, including clinical rotations, didactics, research, and evaluation. Data are summarized with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The survey was sent to the leadership of 15 EMRPs in 12 different African countries and 11 (73%) responded. Five (46%) of the responding programs were started by local non-EM trained faculty, two (18%) were started by international partners, and the remainder by a combination of local non-EM faculty and international partners. Overall, Seven (64%) of the countries offer a 4-year EMRP. In General, 40% of curriculums are influenced the contents developed by African Federation for Emergency Medicine. All programs offer resident led-didactics, with a median of 12 h (Interquartile range 9-6 h) per month. All EMRPs have a mandatory research requirement. All EMRPs offer clinical rotations in the ED, Paediatrics, and Obstetrics and Gynaecology, while only 2 programs offer rotations in radiology and neonatal intensive care units. Only 46% of EMRPs have in-ED clinical supervision by specialist.

CONCLUSION

The EMRPs in Africa were started by non-EM trained local faculty alone or collaboration with international partners. The curriculum offers most exposure to ED, and less exposure in radiology and neonatal intensive care. Residents are highly involved in leading didactics and less than half of the programs have in-ED specialist supervision of patient care.

How common are cognitive errors in cases presented at emergency medicine resident morbidity and mortality conferences?

Background

Cognitive errors are a major contributor to medical error. Traditionally, medical errors at teaching hospitals are analyzed in morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences. We aimed to describe the frequency of cognitive errors in relation to the occurrence of diagnostic and other error types, in cases presented at an emergency medicine (EM) resident M&M conference.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of all cases presented at a suburban US EM residency monthly M&M conference from September 2011 to August 2016. Each case was reviewed using the electronic medical record (EMR) and notes from the M&M case by two EM physicians. Each case was categorized by type of primary medical error that occurred as described by Okafor et al. When a diagnostic error occurred, the case was reviewed for contributing cognitive and non-cognitive factors. Finally, when a cognitive error occurred, the case was classified into faulty knowledge, faulty data gathering or faulty synthesis, as described by Graber et al. Disagreements in error type were mediated by a third EM physician.

Results

A total of 87 M&M cases were reviewed; the two reviewers agreed on 73 cases, and 14 cases required mediation by a third reviewer. Forty-eight cases involved diagnostic errors, 47 of which were cognitive errors. Of these 47 cases, 38 involved faulty synthesis, 22 involved faulty data gathering and only 11 involved faulty knowledge. Twenty cases contained more than one type of cognitive error. Twenty-nine cases involved both a resident and an attending physician, while 17 cases involved only an attending physician. Twenty-one percent of the resident cases involved all three cognitive errors, while none of the attending cases involved all three. Forty-one percent of the resident cases and only 6% of the attending cases involved faulty knowledge. One hundred percent of the resident cases and 94% of the attending cases involved faulty synthesis.

Conclusions

Our review of 87 EM M&M cases revealed that cognitive errors are commonly involved in cases presented, and that these errors are less likely due to deficient knowledge and more likely due to faulty synthesis. M&M conferences may therefore provide an excellent forum to discuss cognitive errors and how to reduce their occurrence.

Emergency Medicine Morbidity and Mortality Conference and Culture of Safety: The Resident Perspective

OBJECTIVE

Morbidity and mortality conference (M&M) is common in emergency medicine (EM) and an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement. We aimed to characterize the prevalence of elements of EM M&M conferences that foster a strong culture of safety.

METHODS

Emergency medicine residents at 33 programs across the United States were surveyed using questions adapted from a previously tested survey of EM program directors and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Culture of Safety Survey.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 80.3% (1,002/1,248). A total of 60.3% (601/997) of residents had not submitted a case of theirs to M&M in the past year. A total of 7.6% (73/954) reported that issues raised at M&M always led to change while 88.3% (842/954) reported that they sometimes did and 4.1% (39/954) reported that they never did. A total of 56.2% (536/954) responded that changes made due to M&M were reported back to the residents. Of residents who had cases presented at M&M, 24.2% (130/538) responded that there was regular debriefing, 65.2% (351/538) responded that there was not, and 10.6% (57/578) were unsure. A total of 10.2% (101/988) of respondents agreed that M&M was punitive, 17.4% were neutral (172/988), and 72.4% (715/988) disagreed. A total of 18.0% (178/987) of residents agreed that they felt pressure to order unnecessary tests because of M&M, 22.3% (220/987) were neutral, and 59.6% (589/987) disagreed. A total of 87.4% (862/986) felt that M&M was a valuable educational didactic session, and 78.3% (766/978) believed that M&M contributes to a culture of safety in their institution.

CONCLUSIONS

While most residents believe that M&M is a valuable didactic session and contributes to institutional culture of safety, there are opportunities to improve by communicating changes made in response to M&M, debriefing residents who have had cases presented, and taking steps to make M&M not feel punitive to some residents.

Description and Yield of Current Quality and Safety Review in Selected US Academic Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVES

Quality and safety review for performance improvement is important for systems of care and is required for US academic emergency departments (EDs). Assessment of the impact of patient safety initiatives in the context of increasing burdens of quality measurement compels standardized, meaningful, high-yield approaches for performance review. Limited data describe how quality and safety reviews are currently conducted and how well they perform in detecting patient harm and areas for improvement. We hypothesized that decades-old approaches used in many academic EDs are inefficient and low yield for identifying patient harm.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the efficiency and yield of current quality review processes at five academic EDs for a 12-month period. Sites provided descriptions of their current practice and collected summary data on the number and severity of events identified in their reviews and the referral sources that led to their capture. Categories of common referral sources were established at the beginning of the study. Sites used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's definition in defining an adverse event and a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index for grading severity of events.

RESULTS

Participating sites had similar processes for quality review, including a two-level review process, monthly reviews and conferences, similar screening criteria, and a grading system for evaluating cases. In 60 months of data collection, we reviewed a total of 4735 cases and identified 381 events. This included 287 near-misses, errors/events (MERP A-I) and 94 adverse events (AEs) (MERP E-I). The overall AE rate (event rate with harm) was 1.99 (95% confidence interval = 1.62%-2.43%), ranging from 1.24% to 3.47% across sites. The overall rate of quality concerns (events without harm) was 6.06% (5.42%-6.78%), ranging from 2.96% to 10.95% across sites. Seventy-two-hour returns were the most frequent referral source used, accounting for 47% of the cases reviewed but with a yield of only 0.81% in identifying harm. Other referral sources similarly had very low yields. External referrals were the highest yield referral source, with 14.34% (10.64%-19.03%) identifying AEs. As a percentage of the 94 AEs identified, external referrals also accounted for 41.49% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

With an overall adverse event rate of 1.99%, commonly used referral sources seem to be low yield and inefficient for detecting patient harm. Approximately 6% of the cases identified by these criteria yielded a near miss or quality concern. New approaches to quality and safety review in the ED are needed to optimize their yield and efficiency for identifying harm and areas for improvement.

The role of morbidity and mortality rounds in medical education: a scoping review

CONTEXT

There is increasing focus on how health care professionals can be trained effectively in quality improvement and patient safety principles. The morbidity and mortality round (MMR) has often been used as a tool with which to examine and teach care quality, yet little is known of its implementation and educational outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to examine and summarise the literature on how the MMR is designed and delivered, and to identify how it is evaluated for effectiveness in addressing medical education outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library databases was conducted for articles published from 1980 to 1 June 2016. Publications in English describing the design, implementation and evaluation of MMRs were included. A total of 67 studies were identified, including eight survey-based studies, four literature reviews, one ethnographic study, three opinion papers, two qualitative observation studies and 49 case studies of education programmes with or without formal evaluation. Study outcomes were categorised using Donald Moore's framework for the evaluation of continuing medical education (CME).

RESULTS

There is much heterogeneity within the literature regarding the implementation, delivery and goals of the MMR. Common design components included explicit programme goals and objectives, the case selection process, case presentation models and some form of case analysis. Evaluation of CME outcomes for MMR were mainly limited to learner participation, satisfaction and self-assessed changes in knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The MMR is widely utilised as an educational tool to promote medical education, patient safety and quality improvement. Although evidence to guide the design and implementation of the MMR to achieve measurable CME outcomes remains limited, there are components associated with positive improvements to learning and performance outcomes.