Impact of organizational culture on preventability assessment of selected adverse events in the ICU: evaluation of morbidity and mortality conferences.

PURPOSE: To determine whether organizational culture is associated with preventability assessment of reported adverse events (AE) in intensive care units (ICU). DESIGN: Blind review of time randomly distributed case notes written in the form of structured abstracts by the nurses who participated in recently implemented morbidity and mortality conferences from December 2006 to June 2010 in a 18-bed ICU in France. Ninety-five abstracts summarizing the discussions of 95 AE involving 95 patients were reviewed by two external blinded pairs (each comprised of one senior intensivist and one psychologist). METHODS: A score for each organizational culture style was determined, with the highest scorer being considered the dominant style present in the abstract. RESULTS: Reliability of the classification and quantification of culture traits between pairs was very good or good for 13 dimensions and moderate for two others. The two pairs deemed 32/95 and 43/95 of AE preventable (κ = 0.59). Concordance was very good (κ = 0.85) between the external pairs for evaluation of the dominant culture style. The Cochran-Armitage trend test indicated an increasing trend for change of the dominant organizational culture style over time: the team-satisfaction-oriented culture took a leading role (p = 0.02), while the people-security-oriented culture decreased dramatically (p < 0.001). The task-security-oriented culture was significantly associated with a preventable judgment, while the people-security-oriented culture was significantly associated with an unpreventable judgment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a strong relationship between preventability assessment of AE reported by caregivers and their organizational culture in the ICU.

Impact of morbidity and mortality conferences on analysis of mortality and critical events in intensive care practice.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality conferences are a tool for evaluating care management, but they lack a precise format for practice in intensive care units. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of regular morbidity and mortality conferences specific to intensive care units for improving quality of care and patient safety. METHODS: For 1 year, a prospective study was conducted in an 18-bed intensive care unit. Events analyzed included deaths in the unit and 4 adverse events (unexpected cardiac arrest, unplanned extubation, reintubation within 24-48 hours after planned extubation, and readmission to the unit within 48 hours after discharge) considered potentially preventable in optimal intensive care practice. During conferences, events were collectively analyzed with the help of an external auditor to determine their severity, causality, and preventability. RESULTS: During the study period, 260 deaths and 100 adverse events involving 300 patients were analyzed. The adverse events rate was 16.6 per 1000 patient-days. Adverse events occurred more often between noon and 4 pm (P = .001).The conference consensus was that 6.1% of deaths and 36% of adverse events were preventable. Preventable deaths were associated with iatrogenesis (P = .008), human errors (P < .001), and failure of unit management factors or communication (P = .003). Three major recommendations were made concerning standardization of care or prescription and organizational management, and no similar incidents have recurred. CONCLUSION: In addition to their educational value, regular morbidity and mortality conferences formatted for intensive care units are useful for assessing quality of care and patient safety.