Measuring What Matters at Morbidity and Mortality Conferences: A Scoping Review of Effectiveness Measures.

OBJECTIVE: Efforts to study morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MC) are hampered by the lack of rigorous instruments to assess the effectiveness of the conferences for the purpose of quality improvement and medical education. This might limit further advancement of the practice. The aim of this scoping review was to determine commonly used effectiveness measures of M&MC in the literature. METHOD: A scoping review was performed of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies of M&MC, using databases from PubMed, Emcare, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies were included if an outcome was described after a general evaluation or an intervention to M&MC. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. RESULTS: A total of 43 articles were included in the review. The majority used a quantitative (n = 23) or mixed (n = 17) design, with surveys as the most frequent method used for data collection (n = 29). The overall Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs scores were modest (64%). Outcome measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of M&MC were clustered in the following categories: "participant experiences," "characteristics of the meeting," "medical knowledge," "actions for improvement," and "clinical outcomes." CONCLUSIONS: This review found a wide variety of effectiveness measures for M&MC. Rather than using isolated measures, approaches that combine multiple effectiveness measures could offer a more comprehensive assessment of M&MC. Although there was a preference for quantitative metrics, this fails to seize the opportunity of qualitative methods to yield insights into sociological purposes of M&MC, such as building professional identities and safety culture.

Government Actions and Their Relation to Resilience in Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic in New South Wales, Australia and Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Resilience, a system's ability to maintain a desired level of performance when circumstances disturb its functioning, is an increasingly important concept in healthcare. However, empirical investigations of resilience in healthcare (RiH) remain uncommon, particularly those that examine how government actions contribute to the capacity for resilient performance in the healthcare setting. We sought to investigate how governmental actions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic related to the concept of resilience, how these actions contributed to the potential for resilient performance in healthcare, and what opportunities exist for governments to foster resilience within healthcare systems. METHODS: We conducted case studies of government actions pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic in New South Wales, Australia and Ontario, Canada. Using media releases issued by each government between December 2019 and August 2020, we performed qualitative content analysis to identify themes relevant to the resilience potentials (anticipate, monitor, respond, learn) and RiH. RESULTS: Direct references to the term 'resilience' appeared in the media releases of both governments. However, these references focused on the reactive aspects of resilience. While actions that constitute the resilience potentials were evident, the media releases also revealed opportunities to enhance learning (eg, a need to capitalize on opportunities for double-loop learning and identify strategies appropriate for complex systems) and anticipating (eg, incorporating the concept of hedging into frameworks of RiH). CONCLUSION: Though fostering RiH through government action remains a challenge, this study suggests opportunities to realize this goal. Articulating a proactive vision of resilience and recognizing the complex nature of current systems could enhance governments' ability to coordinate resilient performance in healthcare. Reflection on how anticipation relates to resilience appears necessary at both the practical and conceptual levels to further develop the capacity for RiH.

Inpatient Palliative Care Consultations From a Canadian Clinical Teaching Unit: Who is Referred and When?

Inpatient palliative care consultation has been demonstrated to improve quality of life as well as decrease hospital readmissions, intensive care unit transfers, and hospital costs for people with a life limiting illness. The clinical teaching units (CTUs) at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) routinely admit patients with noncurable cancer as well as end-stage heart, lung, liver, or kidney disease. However, the use of inpatient palliative care consultations for CTU patients remains unexamined. We conducted a descriptive study of all patients referred from LHSC CTU from both University and Victoria hospital to inpatient palliative care over a 1-year period from August 2013 to July 2014. The purpose of this study was to characterize the population and identify possible areas for quality improvement. In a 1-year period, 638 patients were referred from CTU to the inpatient palliative care consultation service. Of referrals, 55% died during their admission. Based on data collected, we conclude that many patients are referred early in their admission to CTU and patients are referred for a variety of noncancer diseases, suggesting knowledge and appreciation of the benefit of early palliative care consultation for malignant and nonmalignant disease. However, when further analyzed, there is indication that patients with noncancer diagnoses are referred statistically significantly later than those with a cancer diagnosis. The CTUs are sites of core medical training, and therefore, it is imperative that we model early integration of palliative care in order to continue to improve care of patients at end of life.

Effects of efforts to optimise morbidity and mortality rounds to serve contemporary quality improvement and educational goals: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The quality and safety movement has reinvigorated interest in optimising morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds. We performed a systematic review to identify effective means of updating M&M rounds to (1) identify and address quality and safety issues, and (2) address contemporary educational goals. METHODS: Relevant databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, Education Resource Information Centre, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Healthstar, and Global Health) were searched to identify primary sources. Studies were included if they (1) investigated an intervention applied to M&M rounds, (2) reported outcomes relevant to the identification of quality and safety issues, or educational outcomes relevant to quality improvement (QI), patient safety or general medical education and (3) included a control group. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education instruments. Given the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, results were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The final analysis included 19 studies. We identified multiple effective strategies (updating objectives, standardising elements of rounds and attaching rounds to a formal quality committee) to optimise M&M rounds for a QI/safety purpose. These efforts were associated with successful integration of quality and safety content into rounds, and increased implementation of QI interventions. Consistent effects on educational outcomes were difficult to identify, likely due to the use of methodologies ill-fitted for educational research. CONCLUSIONS: These results are encouraging for those seeking to optimise the quality and safety mission of M&M rounds. However, the inability to identify consistent educational effects suggests the investigation of M&M rounds could benefit from additional methodologies (qualitative, mixed methods) in order to understand the complex mechanisms driving learning at M&M rounds.