No abstract

IntroductionMorbidity and mortality conferences (M+M) are a traditional part of residency training and mandated by the Accreditation Counsel of Graduate Medical Education. This study’s objective was to determine the goals, structure, and the prevalence of practices that foster strong safety cultures in the M+Ms of U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residency programs.MethodsThe authors conducted a national survey of U.S. EM residency program directors. The survey instrument evaluated five domains of M+M (Organization and Infrastructure; Case Finding; Case Selection; Presentation; and Follow up) based on the validated Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality Safety Culture survey.ResultsThere was an 80% (151/188) response rate. The primary objectives of M+M were discussing adverse outcomes (53/151, 35%), identifying systems errors (47/151, 31%) and identifying cognitive errors (26/151, 17%). Fifty-six percent (84/151) of institutions have anonymous case submission, with 10% (15/151) maintaining complete anonymity during the presentation and 21% (31/151) maintaining partial anonymity. Forty-seven percent (71/151) of programs report a formal process to follow up on systems issues identified at M+M. Forty-four percent (67/151) of programs report regular debriefing with residents who have had their cases presented.ConclusionThe structure and goals of M+Ms in EM residencies vary widely. Many programs lack features of M+M that promote a non-punitive response to error, such as anonymity. Other programs lack features that support strong safety cultures, such as following up on systems issues or reporting back to residents on improvements. Further research is warranted to determine if M+M structure is related to patient safety culture in residency programs.

As the U.S. health care system changes and technology alters how doctors work and learn, medical schools and their faculty are compelled to modify their curricula and teaching methods. In this article, educational leaders and key faculty describe how the Pathways curriculum was conceived, designed, and implemented at Harvard Medical School. Faculty were committed to the principle that educators should focus on how students learn and their ability to apply what they learn in the evaluation and care of patients. Using the best evidence from the cognitive sciences about adult learning, they made major changes in the pedagogical approach employed in the classroom and clinic. The curriculum was built upon 4 foundational principles: to enhance critical thinking and provide developmentally appropriate content; to ensure both horizontal integration between courses and vertical integration between phases of the curriculum; to engage learners, foster curiosity, and reinforce the importance of student ownership and responsibility for their learning; and to support students’ transformation to a professional dedicated to the care of their patients and to their obligations for lifelong, self-directed learning. The practice of medicine is rapidly evolving and will undoubtedly change in multiple ways over the career of a physician. By emphasizing personal responsibility, professionalism, and thinking skills over content transfer, the authors believe this curriculum will prepare students not only for the first day of practice but also for an uncertain future in the biological sciences, health and disease, and the nation’s health care system, which they will encounter in the decades to come.