Morbidity and mortality meetings to improve patient safety: a survey of 109 consultant surgeons in London, United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity & 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. METHODS: Consultant general surgeons in London, United Kingdom, were invited to anonymously complete an online survey consisting of 18 key items. RESULTS: Invitations 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 (p = 0.001). On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 = fearless), 41 of 105 (39.0%) rated as ≤5 the fearfulness of legal or other negative repercussions resulting from open discussion of complications/mortalities. Ninety-eight respondents gave a median rating of 10 (IQR: 8-10) for willingness to talk openly about their complications/mortalities (10 = willing/able). CONCLUSIONS: Many 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.

Cardiac arrest following arteriovenous fistula manipulation: a cautionary note.

Arteriovenous fistulas can lead to a number of different chronic complications. We describe a case where a patient developed a thrombosis within her brachiobasilic arteriovenous fistula, which was manually manipulated in order to restore fistula flow. This resulted in a pulseless electrical activity cardiac arrest within a few minutes. After ten minutes of chest compressions and intubation, there was return of spontaneous circulation. No epinephrine was given nor shocks administered. Patient was extubated within minutes and was alert, orientated and haemodynamically stable. CT pulmonary angiogram showed extensive bilateral pulmonary emboli. Manual manipulation of the arteriovenous fistula lead to significant amounts of thrombus embolising to the pulmonary arteries, and resultant cardiac arrest due to circulatory compromise. Chest compressions likely dislodged these emboli, allowing circulation to recommence. We publish this as a cautionary note of a rare but potentially fatal complication.

Do we need a different organ allocation system for kidney transplants using donors after circulatory death?

BACKGROUND: There is no national policy for allocation of kidneys from Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors in the UK. Allocation is geographical and based on individual/regional centre policies. We have evaluated the short term outcomes of paired kidneys from DCD donors subject to this allocation policy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of paired renal transplants from DCD's from 2002 to 2010 in London. Cold ischemia time (CIT), recipient risk factors, delayed graft function (DGF), 3 and 12 month creatinine) were compared. RESULTS: Complete data was available on 129 paired kidneys.115 pairs were transplanted in the same centre and 14 pairs transplanted in different centres. There was a significant increase in CIT in kidneys transplanted second when both kidneys were accepted by the same centre (15.5 ± 4.1 vs 20.5 ± 5.8 hrs p<0.0001 and at different centres (15.8 ± 5.3 vs. 25.2 ± 5.5 hrs p=0.0008). DGF rates were increased in the second implant following sequential transplantation (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Paired study sequential transplantation of kidneys from DCD donors results in a significant increase in CIT for the second kidney, with an increased risk of DGF. Sequential transplantation from a DCD donor should be avoided either by the availability of resources to undertake simultaneous procedures or the allocation of kidneys to 2 separate centres.