ArticleThe Neurohospitalist2022
Neurology Morbidity and Mortality Conferences and Quality Improvement: Single-Center Experience and National Survey.
Article in The Neurohospitalist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) conferences are widespread but vary in goals and methodology. Some focus on clinical enigmas while an increasing number utilize quality improvement (QI) tools to effect systems change. Little is known about the current state of US Neurology M&Ms. Methods: We surveyed 56 US academic neurology departments regarding their M&Ms to understand the use of QI tools and assess variability. Additionally, we reviewed the evolution of M&Ms in our department. Results: The survey was completed by 44 (80%) departments; 68% reported quarterly frequency with 61% discussing 1-2 safety events per conference. The number of written guidelines or protocols resulting from M&Ms in 2 years varied from 0 (14% of departments), 1-2 (45%), to >5 (5%). Institutional culture regarding quality and safety and conference timing were cited by 71% as important in improving participation. In our own department, the M&M format changed in 2014 based on a sentinel patient event combined with improving safety culture across the hospital: neurology M&Ms transformed into thematic quarterly conferences utilizing QI tools. Attendance increased 3-fold, and in 7 years, we have generated 26 guidelines or pathways with corresponding decision-support tools, among other improvement efforts, resulting in specific systems changes. Based on survey results and our experience, suggested M&M "best practices" include the use of just culture, peer review protection, safety event analysis with QI methodology, trainee involvement, and logistical optimization. Conclusion: Structured M&Ms incorporating suggested QI-informed "best practices" can be highly effective in driving system change within neurology.
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.