ArticleBMJ open2017
Barriers and facilitators to learn and improve through morbidity and mortality conferences: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Morbidity and Mortality Conference: A Century-Old Practice with Ongoing Potential for Future Improvement.European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie · 2023Article
- Cyclic workflow to improve implementation of learning points from morbidity and mortality meetings.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Parent Participation in Morbidity and Mortality Review: Parent and Physician Perspectives.Journal of patient experience · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore barriers and facilitators to successful morbidity and mortality conferences (M&M), driving learning and improvement.
designThis is a qualitative study with semistructured interviews. Inductive, thematic content analysis was used to identify barriers and facilitators, which were structured across a pre-existing framework for change in healthcare.
settingDutch academic surgical department with a long tradition of M&M.
participantsAn interview sample of surgeons, residents and physician assistants (n=12).
resultsA total of 57 barriers and facilitators to successful M&M, covering 18 themes, varying from 'case type' to 'leadership', were perceived by surgical staff. While some factors related to M&M organisation, others concerned individual or social aspects. Eight factors, of which four were at the social level, had simultaneous positive and negative effects (eg, 'hierarchy' and 'team spirit'). Mediating pathways for M&M success were found to relate to available
conclusionsThis study provides leads for improvement of M&M practice, as well as for further research on key elements of successful M&M. Various factors were perceived to affect M&M success, of which many were individual and social rather than organisational factors, affecting information and realisation processes but also staff motivation. Based on these findings, practical recommendations were formulated to guide efforts towards best practices for M&M.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.