de Vos Marit S, Marang-van de Mheen Perla J, Smith Ann D, Mou Danny, Whang Edward E, Hamming Jaap F
Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
J Surg Educ. 2018 Jan-Feb;75(1):33-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.07.002. Epub 2017 Jul 15.
To assess formats for surgical morbidity and mortality conferences (M&M) for strengths and challenges.
A mixed methods approach with local observations to assess key domains of M&M practice (i.e., goals, structure, and process/content) and surveys to assess participants' expectations and experiences.
Surgical departments of two teaching hospitals (Boston, USA and Leiden, Netherlands).
Participants of surgical M&M, including attending surgeons, residents, physician assistants, and medical students (total n = 135).
Surgical M&M practices at both hospitals had education as its overarching goal, but varied in structure and process/content. Expectations were similar at both sites with ≥80% of participants (n = 90; 67% response) expecting M&M to be focused on education as well as quality improvement (QI), blame-free, mandatory for both residents and attendings, and to lead to changes in clinical practice. However, compared to expectations, significantly fewer participants at both sites experienced: a QI focus (both p < 0.001); mandatory faculty attendance (p = 0.004; p < 0.001) and changes to practice (both p < 0.001). In comparison, at the site where an active moderator and QI committee are present, respondents seemed more positive about experiencing a QI focus (73% vs 30%) and changes to practice (44% vs 16%).
Despite variation in M&M practice, the same (unmet) expectations existed at both hospitals, indicating that certain challenges may be more universal. M&M was reported to be well-focused on education, and certain aspects (e.g., active moderator and QI committee) seemed beneficial, but expectations were not met for the conference's focus and function for QI. Greater exchange of "best practices" for M&M may enhance the conference's value for improving surgical care.
评估手术发病率和死亡率会议(M&M会议)的形式,分析其优势与挑战。
采用混合方法,通过实地观察评估M&M会议实践的关键领域(即目标、结构和流程/内容),并通过调查评估参与者的期望和体验。
两家教学医院的外科科室(美国波士顿和荷兰莱顿)。
手术M&M会议的参与者,包括主治外科医生、住院医师、医师助理和医学生(共135人)。
两家医院的手术M&M会议实践均以教育为首要目标,但在结构和流程/内容方面存在差异。两地的期望相似,≥80%的参与者(n = 90;67%的回复率)期望M&M会议专注于教育以及质量改进(QI),无指责性,住院医师和主治医生均须参加,并能导致临床实践的改变。然而,与期望相比,两地实际体验到以下情况的参与者明显较少:关注QI(两地p均<0.001);教员强制参加(p = 0.004;p < 0.001)以及实践改变(两地p均<0.001)。相比之下,在设有积极主持人和QI委员会的地点,受访者对体验到关注QI(73%对30%)和实践改变(44%对16%)似乎更为积极。
尽管M&M会议实践存在差异,但两家医院存在相同的(未满足的)期望,这表明某些挑战可能更为普遍。据报道,M&M会议非常注重教育,某些方面(如积极主持人和QI委员会)似乎有益,但会议对QI的关注和功能未达期望。更多地交流M&M会议的“最佳实践”可能会提高该会议对改善手术护理的价值。