Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jul;21(7):576-85.
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000603. Epub 2012 May 3.

Mortality and morbidity meetings: an untapped resource for improving the governance of patient safety?

Affiliations

Mortality and morbidity meetings: an untapped resource for improving the governance of patient safety?

Juliet Higginson et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Jul.

Abstract

Introduction: National Health Service hospitals and government agencies are increasingly using mortality rates to monitor the quality of inpatient care. Mortality and Morbidity (M&M) meetings, established to review deaths as part of professional learning, have the potential to provide hospital boards with the assurance that patients are not dying as a consequence of unsafe clinical practices. This paper examines whether and how these meetings can contribute to the governance of patient safety.

Methods: To understand the arrangement and role of M&M meetings in an English hospital, non-participant observations of meetings (n=9) and semistructured interviews with meeting chairs (n=19) were carried out. Following this, a structured mortality review process was codesigned and introduced into three clinical specialties over 12 months. A qualitative approach of observations (n=30) and interviews (n=40) was used to examine the impact on meetings and on frontline clinicians, managers and board members.

Findings: The initial study of M&M meetings showed a considerable variation in the way deaths were reviewed and a lack of integration of these meetings into the hospital's governance framework. The introduction of the standardised mortality review process strengthened these processes. Clinicians supported its inclusion into M&M meetings and managers and board members saw that a standardised trust-wide process offered greater levels of assurance.

Conclusion: M&M meetings already exist in many healthcare organisations and provide a governance resource that is underutilised. They can improve accountability of mortality data and support quality improvement without compromising professional learning, especially when facilitated by a standardised mortality review process.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Changes to the governance of mortality data during the study.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. The Canadian Institute for Health Information HSMR: A New Approach for Measuring Hospital Mortality Trends in Canada. Ottawa: CIHI, 2007
    1. Jarman B, Pieter D, van der Veen AA, et al. The hospital standardised mortality ratio: a powerful tool for Dutch hospitals to assess their quality of care? Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:9–13 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Francis R. Independent Inquiry into Care Provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust January 2005–March 2009. London:Stationery Office; 2010
    1. Dr Foster Intelligence The Dr Foster Hospital Guide 2009: How Safe is Your Hospital? London: Dr Foster Intelligence; 2009
    1. National Patient Safety Agency Patient Safety First. The Campaign Review. London: National Patient Safety Agency, 2011

Publication types

MeSH terms