↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of the contribution of morbidity and mortality conferences to quality and safety improvement: a survey of participants’ perceptions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of the contribution of morbidity and mortality conferences to quality and safety improvement: a survey of participants’ perceptions
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1431-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

André Lecoanet, Gwenaëlle Vidal-Trecan, Frédéric Prate, Jean-François Quaranta, Elodie Sellier, Alizé Guyomard, Arnaud Seigneurin, Patrice François

Abstract

Evidence for the effectiveness of the morbidity and mortality conferences in improving patient safety is lacking. The aim of this survey was to assess the opinion of participants concerning the benefits and the functioning of morbidity and mortality conferences, according to their organizational characteristics. We conducted a survey of professionals involved in a morbidity and mortality conference using a self-administered questionnaire in three French teaching hospitals in 2012. The questionnaire focused on the functioning of morbidity and mortality conferences, the perceived benefits, the motivations of participants, and how morbidity and mortality conferences could be improved. The perception of participants was analysed according to the characteristics of morbidity and mortality conferences. A total of 698 participants in 54 morbidity and mortality conferences completed the questionnaire. Most of them (91 %) were satisfied with how the morbidity and mortality conference they attended was conducted. The improvements in healthcare quality and patient safety were the main benefits perceived by participants. Effectiveness in improving safety was mainly perceived when cases were thoroughly analysed (adjusted odds ratio [a0R] =2.31 [1.14-4.66]). The existence of a written charter (p = 0.05), the use of a standardized case presentation (p = 0.049), and prior dissemination of the meeting agenda (p = 0.02) were also associated with the perception of morbidity and mortality conference effectiveness. The development and achievement of improvement initiatives were associated with morbidity and mortality conferences perceived as being more effective (p < 0.01). Participants suggested improving the attendance of medical and paramedical professionals to enhance the effectiveness of morbidity and mortality conferences. Morbidity and mortality conferences were positively perceived. These results suggest that a structured framework and thoroughly analyzing cases improve their effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Other 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 25 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,459,684
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,486
of 7,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,378
of 309,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#69
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.