Morbidity and Mortality Conference in Ophthalmology: Pilot Study on Maximizing Quality while Optimizing Education

Author:

Mudalegundi Shwetha1,Melson Andrew2,Zhang Alice Yang3,Tu Daniel4,Rosenberg Jamie5,Moore Daniel6,Knoch Daniel7,Kang Jessica Minjy8,Woreta Fasika1,Green Laura9,Swamy Ramya10,Tannan Anjali11,Ramanathan Saras12

Affiliation:

1. Wilmer Eye Institute, John Hopkins University

2. University of Oklahoma

3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

4. Oregon Health and Sciences University

5. Albert Einstein College of Medicine

6. University of Kentucky Health Care

7. University of Wisconsin

8. Northwestern University

9. Krieger Eye Institute, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore

10. University of Maryland

11. Rush University

12. University of California San Francisco

Abstract

Abstract

Purpose/Background: Discussion of medical and surgical adverse events between peers and learners allows for all members of the learning community to benefit from lessons learned while assessing and resolving that situation. Little is known about the ways academic ophthalmology departments discuss adverse events, or how those discussions impact attending and resident education. This pilot study surveys US academic ophthalmology residency programs using a mixed methods analysis to determine the current frequency, structure, purpose, and outcomes of morbidity and mortality or other quality improvement conferences. Design/Methods: An 25-item electronic questionnaire was e-mailed to 121 program directors with a request to each PD to forward the same 25-item questionnaire to their respective residents. The response period was between May 2023 and July 2023, with two reminders. Questionnaire items were grouped into the following themes: demographics; timing, frequency, and structure; purpose and goals; perceived outcome; and obstacles/areas for improvement. Results: Responses were received from 30/121 (25%) of program directors and 26/1989 (1%) residents. The majority or 31/56 (56%) of respondents’ programs held M&M conferences quarterly, while the frequency range was weekly to quarterly. Residents involved in the patient’s care often were the ones to present (51%) cases which were usually determined by a provider-generated list (53%). Most respondents reported the lack of an anonymous case submission method (75%) and only 31% of participants stated that they had a formalized process for following up on systems issues identified in M&M. The primary obstacle to effective M&Ms was reported to be the fear of judgement/embarrassment or repercussions. Conclusion: There is significant variation in the way complications are discussed in ophthalmology departments across the country. This study demonstrates a near universal need for increased frequency and duration of M&Ms, a formal complication/mistake reporting system, and a formal follow-up on systems issues identified during M&M. These best practices can benefit the culture around discussing complications and increase adoption of M&M conferences in ophthalmology to facilitate better patient safety and outcomes.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3