Taking Morbidity and Mortality Conferences to a Next Level: The Resilience Engineering Concept.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
6
9
2020
medline:
11
11
2020
entrez:
5
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To explore possibilities to improve morbidity and mortality conferences using advancing insights in safety science. Mortality and Morbidity conferences (M&M) are the golden practice for case-based learning. While learning from complications is useful, M&M does not meet expectations for system-wide improvement. Resilience engineering principles may be used to improve M&M. After a review of the shortcomings of traditional M&M, resilience engineering principles are explored as a new way to evaluate performance. This led to the development of a new M&M format that also reviews successful outcomes, rather than only complications. This "quality assessment meeting" (QAM) is presented and the first experiences are evaluated using local observations and a survey. During the QAM teams evaluate all discharged patients, addressing team resilience in terms of surgeons' ability to respond to irregularities and to monitor and learn from experiences. The meeting was feasible to implement and well received by the surgical team. Observations reveal that reflection on both complicated and uncomplicated cases strengthened team morale but also triggered reflection on the entire clinical course. The QAM serves as a tool to identify how adapting behavior led to success despite challenging conditions, so that this resilient performance can be supported. The resilience engineering concept can be used to adjust M&M, in which learning is focused not only on complications but also on how successful outcomes were achieved despite ever-present challenges. This reveals the actual ratio between successful and unsuccessful outcomes, allowing to learn from both to reinforce safety-enhancing behavior.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To explore possibilities to improve morbidity and mortality conferences using advancing insights in safety science.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
Mortality and Morbidity conferences (M&M) are the golden practice for case-based learning. While learning from complications is useful, M&M does not meet expectations for system-wide improvement. Resilience engineering principles may be used to improve M&M.
METHODS
After a review of the shortcomings of traditional M&M, resilience engineering principles are explored as a new way to evaluate performance. This led to the development of a new M&M format that also reviews successful outcomes, rather than only complications. This "quality assessment meeting" (QAM) is presented and the first experiences are evaluated using local observations and a survey.
RESULTS
During the QAM teams evaluate all discharged patients, addressing team resilience in terms of surgeons' ability to respond to irregularities and to monitor and learn from experiences. The meeting was feasible to implement and well received by the surgical team. Observations reveal that reflection on both complicated and uncomplicated cases strengthened team morale but also triggered reflection on the entire clinical course. The QAM serves as a tool to identify how adapting behavior led to success despite challenging conditions, so that this resilient performance can be supported.
CONCLUSIONS
The resilience engineering concept can be used to adjust M&M, in which learning is focused not only on complications but also on how successful outcomes were achieved despite ever-present challenges. This reveals the actual ratio between successful and unsuccessful outcomes, allowing to learn from both to reinforce safety-enhancing behavior.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32889871
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004447
pii: 00000658-202011000-00002
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
678-683Références
Gordon LA. Gordon's Guide to the Surgical Morbidity and Mortality Conference. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley and Belfus Inc; 1994.
de Vos MS, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Smith AD, et al. Toward best practices for surgical morbidity and mortality conferences: a mixed methods study. J Surg Educ 2018; 75:33–42.
Sacks GD, Lawson EH, Tillou A, et al. Morbidity and mortality conference 2.0. Ann Surg 2015; 262:228–229.
Macrae C. The problem with incident reporting. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25:71–75.
Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson NG. Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate; 2006.
Hollnagel E. Introduction to the Resilience Analysis Grid (RAG). 2015 . Available from: https://erikhollnagel.com/onewebmedia/RAG%20Outline%20V2.pdf. Accessed July 2020
Xiong X, Johnson T, Jayaraman D, et al. At the crossroad with morbidity and mortality conferences: lessons learned through a narrative systematic review. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 2016:7679196.
Aboumatar HJ, Blackledge CG Jr, Dickson C, et al. A descriptive study of morbidity and mortality conferences and their conformity to medical incident analysis models: results of the morbidity and mortality conference improvement study, phase 1. Am J Med Qual 2007; 22:232–238.
Kievit J, Krukerink M, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Surgical adverse outcome reporting as part of routine clinical care. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19:e20.
Veen EJ, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Leenen LP, et al. The registration of complications in surgery: a learning curve. World J Surg 2005; 29:402–409.
Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, et al. The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 2013; 258:1–7.
Gero D, Muller X, Staiger RD, et al. How to establish benchmarks for surgical outcomes? A checklist based on an international expert delphi consensus. Ann Surg 2020; ePub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003931.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003931
de Vos MS, Hamming JF, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Learning from morbidity and mortality conferences: focus and sustainability of lessons for patient care. J Patient Saf 2017; DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000440.
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000440
Bal G, Sellier E, Tchouda SD, et al. Improving quality of care and patient safety through morbidity and mortality conferences. J Healthc Qual 2014; 36:29–36.
Antonacci AC, Lam S, Lavarias V, et al. A report card system using error profile analysis and concurrent morbidity and mortality review: surgical outcome analysis, part II. J Surg Res 2009; 153:95–104.
Dimick JB, Greenberg CC. Understanding gaps in surgical quality: learning to count what cannot be counted. Ann Surg 2013; 257:6–7.
Mosher BD, Anderson CI, Nelson C, et al. The significance of nontechnical root causes in morbidity and mortality conference: the delivery of surgical care as a science. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 209:S96–S100.
Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, et al. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg 2004; 239:475–482.
Lipira LE, Gallagher TH. Disclosure of adverse events and errors in surgical care: challenges and strategies for improvement. World J Surg 2014; 38:1614–1621.
Flynn-O’Brien KT, Mandell SP, Eaton EV, et al. Surgery and medicine residents’ perspectives of morbidity and mortality conference: an interdisciplinary approach to improve ACGME core competency compliance. J Surg Educ 2015; 72:e258–e266.
Kauffmann RM, Landman MP, Shelton J, et al. The use of a multidisciplinary morbidity and mortality conference to incorporate ACGME general competencies. J Surg Educ 2011; 68:303–308.
Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T, et al. The next GME accreditation system--rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1051–1056.
Orlander JD, Barber TW, Fincke BG. The morbidity and mortality conference: the delicate nature of learning from error. Acad Med 2002; 77:1001–1006.
Leape LL, Berwick DM. Five years after To Err Is Human: what have we learned? JAMA 2005; 293:2384–2390.
Harbison SP, Regehr G. Faculty and resident opinions regarding the role of morbidity and mortality conference. Am J Surg 1999; 177:136–139.
Pierluissi E, Fischer MA, Campbell AR, et al. Discussion of medical errors in morbidity and mortality conferences. JAMA 2003; 290:2838–2842.
Bosk CL. Forgive and Remember: Managing Medical Failure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press; 1979.
Wachter RM, Shojania KG. Internal Bleeding. New York, NY: Rugged Land; 2004.
Medicine Io. The Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
Scott SD, Hirschinger LE, Cox KR, et al. The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse patient events. Qual Saf Health Care 2009; 18:325–330.
de Vos MS, Hamming JF, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Barriers and facilitators to learn and improve through morbidity and mortality conferences: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2017; 7:e018833.
Hollnagel E, Braithwaite J, Wears R. Delivering Resilient Health Care. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge; 2019.
Hollnagel E. PRET. The Resilient Performance Enhancement Toolkit. 2019. Available from: https://safetysynthesis.com/onewebmedia/RPET%20V8.pdf. Accessed July 2020
Sujan MA, Huang H, Braithwaite J. Learning from incidents in health care: critique from a safety-II perspective. Saf Sci 2017; 99:115–121.
Wu AW, Lipshutz AK, Pronovost PJ. Effectiveness and efficiency of root cause analysis in medicine. JAMA 2008; 299:685–687.
Rankin A, Lundberg J, Woltjer R, et al. Resilience in everyday operations: a framework for analyzing adaptations in high-risk work. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 2014; 8:78–97.
Braithwaite J, Wears RL, Hollnagel E. Resilient health care: turning patient safety on its head. Int J Qual Health Care 2015; 27:418–420.
Fairbanks RJ, Wears RL, Woods DD, et al. Resilience and resilience engineering in health care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2014; 40:376–383.
Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Complications, failure to rescue, and mortality with major inpatient surgery in medicare patients. Ann Surg 2009; 250:1029–1034.
Holbrook JB, Stewart MJ, Smith BE, et al. Human Performance Contributions to Safety in Commercial Aviation. Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center; 2019.
de Carvalho P. The use of Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) in a mid-air collision to understand some characteristics of the air traffic management system resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2011; 96:1482–1498.
2010; Hollnagel E. Resilience Engineering and Integrated Operations in the Petroleum Industry. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1317.4245.
doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1317.4245
Neily J, Mills PD, Young-Xu Y, et al. Association between implementation of a medical team training program and surgical mortality. JAMA 2010; 304:1693–1700.
McCulloch P, Mishra A, Handa A, et al. The effects of aviation-style non-technical skills training on technical performance and outcome in the operating theatre. Qual Saf Health Care 2009; 18:109–115.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240:205–213.
Risucci DA, Sullivan T, DiRusso S, et al. Assessing educational validity of the Morbidity and Mortality conference: a pilot study. Curr Surg 2003; 60:204–209.
Berkowitz R, Vu J, Brummett C, et al. The impact of complications and pain on patient satisfaction. Ann Surg 2019.
de Vos MS, Hamming JF, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. The problem with using patient complaints for improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 27:758–762.
de Vos MS, Hamming JF, Boosman H, et al. The association between complications, incidents, and patient experience: retrospective linkage of routine patient experience surveys and safety data. J Patient Saf 2019; DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000581.
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000581
Urbach DR, Govindarajan A, Saskin R, et al. Introduction of surgical safety checklists in Ontario, Canada. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1029–1038.
Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:491–499.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250:187–196.
Clavien PA, Puhan MA. Measuring and achieving the best possible outcomes in surgery. The Br J Surg 2017; 104:1121–1122.
Staiger RD, Schwandt H, Puhan MA, et al. Improving surgical outcomes through benchmarking. Br J Surg 2019; 106:59–64.
Kwok ESH, Calder LA, Barlow-Krelina E, et al. Implementation of a structured hospital-wide morbidity and mortality rounds model. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26:439–448.
Bechtold ML, Scott S, Nelson K, et al. Educational quality improvement report: outcomes from a revised morbidity and mortality format that emphasised patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 2007; 16:422–427.
Abdelsattar JM, Mourany J, Afridi FG, et al. Enhancing the educational value and faculty attendance of a morbidity and mortality conference. J Surg Educ 2020; 77:905–910.
Francois P, Prate F, Vidal-Trecan G, et al. Characteristics of morbidity and mortality conferences associated with the implementation of patient safety improvement initiatives, an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16:35.
Mitchell EL, Lee DY, Arora S, et al. Improving the quality of the surgical morbidity and mortality conference: a prospective intervention study. Acad Med 2013; 88:824–830.
Lewis CE, Relan A, Hines OJ, et al. Morbidity and mortality as a televideoconference: a randomized prospective evaluation of learning and perceptions. J Am Coll of Surg 2011; 212:400–405.
Smaggus A, Mrkobrada M, Marson A, et al. Effects of efforts to optimise morbidity and mortality rounds to serve contemporary quality improvement and educational goals: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 27:74–84.