Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36344010›Full record

ReviewBMJ open quality2022

Review of the utility of routine mortality reviews among deaths on General Internal Medicine wards in a Canadian tertiary care hospital.

Kelvin Tran, Raj Padwal, Peter Hamilton, Jennifer Ngo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 76% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kelvin TranDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Raj PadwalDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Peter HamiltonDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jennifer NgoDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada jtn@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-4737-7182
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHospital morbidity and mortality reviews are common quality assurance activities, intended to uncover latent or unrecognised systemic issues that contribute to preventable adverse events and patient harm. Mortality reviews may be routinely mandated by hospital policy or for accreditation purposes. However, patients under the care of certain specialties, such as general internal medicine (GIM), are affected by a substantial burden of chronic disease, advanced age, frailty or limited life expectancy. Many of their deaths could be viewed as reasonably foreseeable, and unrelated to poor-quality care.

methodsWe sought to determine how frequently postmortem chart reviews for hospitalised GIM patients at our tertiary care centre in Canada would uncover patient safety or quality of care issues that directly led to these patients' deaths. We reviewed the charts of all patients who died while admitted to the GIM admitting service over a 12-month time period between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021.

resultsWe found that in only 2% of cases was a clinical adverse event detected that directly contributed to a poor or unexpected outcome for the patient, and of those cases, more than half were related to unfortunate nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 infection.

conclusionDue to an overall low yield, we discourage routine mortality chart reviews for general medical patients, and instead suggest that organisations focus on strategies to recognise and capture safety incidents that may not necessarily result in death.

Indexed as

COVID-19CanadaHumansInternal MedicineQuality of Health CareTertiary Care Centersadverse events, epidemiology and detectionhospital mortalitymorbidity and mortality rounds

Identifiers

PMID36344010
PMCPMC9644347
OpenAlexW4308435285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.