The Morbidity and Mortality Conference: A Century-Old Practice with Ongoing Potential for Future Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss practical strategies to consider for morbidity and mortality conferences (M&M). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article reflects on (i) insights that can be drawn from the M&M literature, (ii) practical aspects to consider when organizing M&M, and (iii) possible future directions for development for this long-standing practice for routine reflection. RESULTS: M&M offers the opportunity to learn from past cases in order to improve the care delivered to future patients, thereby serving both educational and quality improvement purposes. For departments seeking to implement or improve local M&M practice, it is difficult that a golden standard or best practice for M&M is nonexistent. This is partly because comparative research on different formats is hampered by the lack of objective outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of M&M. Common practical suggestions include the use of (i) a skillful and active moderator; (ii) structured formats for case presentation and discussion; and (iii) a dedicated committee to guide improvement plans that ensue from the meeting. M&M practice is affected by various sociological factors, for which qualitative research methods seem most suitable, but in the M&M literature these are sparsely used. Moreover, aspects influencing an open and blame-free atmosphere underline how local teams should tailor the format to best fit the local context and culture. CONCLUSION: This article presents practice guidance on how to organize and carry out M&M This practice for routine reflection needs to be tailored to the local setting, with attention for various sociological factors that are at play.

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.

Rupture of a Median Sacral Artery Aneurysm in a Patient with Vascular Ehlers Danlos Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Vascular Ehlers Danlos syndrome is a rare connective tissue disease that is associated with various arterial complications. REPORT: A 25 year old man with vascular Ehlers Danlos syndrome presented with acute lower back pain as a result of a ruptured aneurysm of the median sacral artery (MSA). Prior medical history included several vascular events resulting in a right iliac occlusion. The unusual location of aneurysmal disease of the MSA might be explained by extensive collateral flow recruitment due to this occlusion. CONCLUSION: Previous vascular events inducing collateral recruitment might justify a more frequent follow up in patients with connective tissue disorders.

Taking Morbidity and Mortality Conferences to a Next Level: The Resilience Engineering Concept.

OBJECTIVE: To explore possibilities to improve morbidity and mortality conferences using advancing insights in safety science. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Mortality and Morbidity conferences (M&M) are the golden practice for case-based learning. While learning from complications is useful, M&M does not meet expectations for system-wide improvement. Resilience engineering principles may be used to improve M&M. METHODS: After a review of the shortcomings of traditional M&M, resilience engineering principles are explored as a new way to evaluate performance. This led to the development of a new M&M format that also reviews successful outcomes, rather than only complications. This "quality assessment meeting" (QAM) is presented and the first experiences are evaluated using local observations and a survey. RESULTS: During the QAM teams evaluate all discharged patients, addressing team resilience in terms of surgeons' ability to respond to irregularities and to monitor and learn from experiences. The meeting was feasible to implement and well received by the surgical team. Observations reveal that reflection on both complicated and uncomplicated cases strengthened team morale but also triggered reflection on the entire clinical course. The QAM serves as a tool to identify how adapting behavior led to success despite challenging conditions, so that this resilient performance can be supported. CONCLUSIONS: The resilience engineering concept can be used to adjust M&M, in which learning is focused not only on complications but also on how successful outcomes were achieved despite ever-present challenges. This reveals the actual ratio between successful and unsuccessful outcomes, allowing to learn from both to reinforce safety-enhancing behavior.

The Value of PDRI and P-PASS as Predictors of Outcome After Pancreas Transplantation in a Large European Pancreas Transplantation Center.

OBJECTIVE: In 2008, the preprocurement pancreas suitability score (P-PASS) was introduced within Eurotransplant to predict suitability of pancreas donors. A P-PASS of 17 or higher would have lower graft survival compared with pancreatic grafts from donors with a P-PASS lower than 17. In 2010, a continuous model, the pancreas donor risk index (PDRI), was designed. Before using this model in the European donor population, it has to be validated in the European setting. METHODS: In this study, P-PASS and PDRI were validated using the results of all pancreas transplants performed at our center. The P-PASS and PDRI were compared as both continuous and dichotomous values. The original cutoff point of 17 divided P-PASS groups. Median PDRI (1.24) divided PDRI groups. RESULTS: In total, 349 pancreas transplantations were performed. The P-PASS of 17 or higher was not associated with graft survival (P = 0.448). The PDRI of 1.24 or higher was associated with reduced graft survival in univariate analysis (P = 0.007) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.002). The PDRI concordance index was 0.69. CONCLUSIONS: The P-PASS has no predictive value for pancreas graft survival and should not be used in clinical decision making. The PDRI is a significant predictor of pancreas graft survival but should be used carefully, because good results can be achieved with grafts from high-PDRI donors.

Thirty Years of Pancreas Transplantation at Leiden University Medical Center: Long-term Follow-up in a Large Eurotransplant Center.

BACKGROUND: An overview of 30 years of pancreas transplantation at a high volume center. Analysis of patient survival- and graft survival-associated risk factors. METHODS: All pancreas transplantations performed in our center from January 1, 1984, till December 31, 2012, were evaluated. Covariates influencing pancreas graft survival were analyzed using both univariate and multivariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: In the study period, 349 pancreas transplantations were performed. With the introduction of modern induction therapy in 1999, 5-year patient survival improved to 92.0% (P = 0.003). Five-year pancreas graft survival improved to 80.3% (P = 0.026). Pancreas graft survival was influenced by left or right donor kidney, transplant type, local origin of procurement team, pancreas cold ischemia time, recipient cerebrovascular disease. Pancreas donor risk index increased to 1.39 over the years and pancreas donor risk index 1.24 or higher is a risk factor for graft survival (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown excellent results in patient and pancreas graft survivals after 30 years of pancreas transplantation in a high volume center. Different donor, transplant, and recipient related risk factors influence pancreas graft survival. Even with higher risk pancreas donors, good results can be achieved.