Systematic Review of Morbidity and Mortality Meeting Standardization: Does It Lead to Improved Professional Development, System Improvements, Clinician Engagement, and Enhanced Patient Safety Culture?

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to better understand the effect of standardized Morbidity and Mortality meetings (M&Ms) on learning, system improvement, clinician engagement, and patient safety culture. METHODS: Three electronic databases were searched using a range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings to identify the major concepts of M&M meetings. Articles published between October 2012 (the end date of an earlier review) and February 2021 were assessed against the inclusion criteria, and thematic synthesis was conducted on the included studies. RESULTS: After abstract and full-text review in Covidence, from 824 studies identified, 16 met the eligibility criteria. Studies were mostly surveys (n = 13) and evaluated effectiveness primarily from the perspectives of M&M chairs and participants, rather than assessment of objective improvement in patient outcomes. The most prevalent themes relating to the standardization of M&M processes were case selection (n = 15) and administration (n = 12). The objectives of quality improvement and education were equally prevalent (12 studies each), but several studies reported that these 2 objectives as conflicting rather than complementary. Clinician engagement, patient safety culture, and organizational governance and leadership were identified as facilitators of effective M&Ms. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to guide best practice in M&Ms, but standardized structures and processes implemented with organizational leadership and administrative support are associated with M&Ms that address objectives related to learning and system improvement. Standardization of the structures and processes of M&Ms is perceived differently depending on participants' role and discipline, and clinician engagement is critical to support a culture of safety and quality improvement.

The Clinical Nursing and Midwifery Dashboard (CNMD): A State-Wide Implementation.

The clinical nursing and midwifery dashboard (CNMD) was built to provide a near real-time information and data visualisations for nurse unit managers (NUMs) and maternity unit managers (MUMs) within only a 5-15 minutes delay from when they enter data to the integrated electronic medical records (ieMR) system. The dashboard displays metrics and information about current adult inpatients in overnight wards. The aim is to support NUMs and MUMs to manage their daily workload and have continuous visibility of patients nursing risk and safety assessment documentation. A quantitative evaluation approach was conducted to measure the impact of the dashboard on key performance indicators. Statistical analysis was completed to compare risk assessment average completion times prior to and post CNMD implementation. The results of the evaluation were positive, and the statistical analysis shows significant reduction in the average time to complete different risk assessments with p-value<0.01.

Theatre Performance Dashboard: Development and Challenges.

Manual theatre performance measurement is resource yearning and inaccurate. To automate the process, we built a dashboard which provides interactive visualisation of key performance metrics related to operating theatres. The aim is to assist in the efficient management of surgical services and provide visibility on metrics trending over time for health service facilities.

Digital transformation of hospital quality and safety: real-time data for real-time action.

The Australian Commission for Safety and Quality in Health Care has created the National Safety and Quality Health Service standards that all hospitals must address in order to remain accredited. This case study details the first known digitisation of the 10 national quality and safety standards mandated in a quaternary integrated digital hospital. A team of clinical informaticians, information technology experts and clinicians was assembled. Data were chosen and the data were then extracted and validated and presented (often in near real time) in an easily consumable dashboard format with appropriate governance to allow clinicians and executives to monitor the quality and safety standards across the hospital. All 10 standards were defined and extracted contemporaneously from the digital hospital for every patient, every time. This is in stark contrast with traditional retrospective point prevalence surveys. This case study details the first known fully digital accreditation in a sophisticated integrated digital hospital. Digitisation of hospital quality and safety to produce real-time data is the future of clinical redesign to improve patient care.