ArticlePatient safety in surgery2019
Morbidity and mortality meetings to improve patient safety: a survey of 109 consultant surgeons in London, United Kingdom.
Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the quality of general surgery continuous quality improvement rounds: lessons learned from British Columbia.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Peripheral intravenous catheter clinical care standard adherence in emergency departments: A qualitative study underpinned by the behaviour change wheel.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Morbidity and Mortality Conferences of the Philippine General Hospital Department of Surgery: A Survey on the Perception of Surgical Trainees to Improve Patient Safety.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- Understanding pre-hospital blood transfusion decision-making for injured patients: an interview study.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2023Article
- Brave Clarice-healthcare serial killers, patterns, motives, and solutions.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2023Review
- Learning from experience: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives on reporting and dealing with serious adverse events.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Cyclic workflow to improve implementation of learning points from morbidity and mortality meetings.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The value of Morbidity & Mortality (M&M) conferences in residency training: a proposed model from an academic medical center in Iran.Patient safety in surgery · 2020Article
- Models of teaching medical errors.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMorbidity & 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.
methodsConsultant general surgeons in London, United Kingdom, were invited to anonymously complete an online survey consisting of 18 key items.
resultsInvitations 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 (
conclusionsMany 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.
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.