The morbidity and mortality meeting: time for a different approach?

Fraser, James

doi:10.1136/archdischild-2015-309536

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Doubts exist as to the effectiveness of M&M meetings in improving outcomes, and this has been attributed, for example, to the use of non-standard approaches, the absence of relevant staff and the under-utilisation of accepted models for incident analysis [20]. However, standardization of case selection and structured presentations can increase participation, educational value and the perception of an increased impact on future patient care [21, 22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morbidity and mortality meetings to improve patient safety: a survey of 109 consultant surgeons in London, United Kingdom

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Morbidity & Mortality (M&M) meetings are a critical component of clinical governance. They have the potential to improve patient outcomes, quality of care, attitudes towards patient safety and they contribute to the education of clinical staff. This study aimed to evaluate individual surgeons’ experience of these meetings, and to explore their perceived usefulness and barriers to open discussion of adverse outcomes. Methods Consultant general surgeons in London, United Kingdom, were invited to anonymously complete an online survey consisting of 18 key items. Results Invitations were sent to 323 consultant surgeons from 19 NHS Trusts. Responses were received from 109 (33.7%), of which 99 (90.8%) answered all key items. Seventy-two of 104 (69.2%) attend almost all or all M&M meetings. These were rated as being more conducive for learning than for service improvement ( p = 0.001). On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 = fearless), 41 of 105 (39.0%) rated as ≤5 the fearfulness of legal or other negative repercussions resulting from open discussion of complications/mortalities. Ninety-eight respondents gave a median rating of 10 (IQR: 8–10) for willingness to talk openly about their complications/mortalities (10 = willing/able). Conclusions Many surgeons in London do not routinely attend M&M meetings, despite these occurring within ‘protected time’. There may be a willingness to talk openly about complications, though there exists a fear of litigation. The nature, content and learning potential of such open M&M discussions should be explored in future research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morbidity and mortality meetings to improve patient safety: a survey of 109 consultant surgeons in London, United Kingdom

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are also a platform to identify and institute change to systems and processes and thereby drive quality improvement and overall service delivery [1, 7, 9-13, 19, 20]. There has been mixed success in achieving these aims due to the wide variation in the quality of these meetings and the perceived effectiveness of M&M meetings in improving patient outcome [6,11,19]. These have been largely attributed to poorly standardised approaches and variable attendance by key staff members.…”

Section: Goals Of Mandm Meetingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The M&M conference can be a forum for identifying such issues to provide a basis to implement change and improve patient safety. Contemporary M&M meetings form an important part of the organisation's governance framework that supports individual learning and encourages examination of current systems and processes [6,7,[9][10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Conducting Meetings on Morbidity and Mortality

Chun

Bharadwaz

Tun

et al. 2021

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The morbidity and mortality conference (MMC) has been a major forum for improving clinical practice for more than 100 years , but the impact of these conferences on patient outcomes remains unclear . General surgery and anaesthesia were two of the first fields to truly integrate the MMC and now, they have been incorporated into quality improvement initiatives in most medical specialties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%