发病率和死亡率符合标准化的系统评价:它是否会促进专业发展、系统改进、临床医生参与和增强患者安全文化?

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-30 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001184
Emily J Steel, Monika Janda, Shayaun Jamali, Michelle Winning, Bryan Dai, Kylie Sellwood
{"title":"发病率和死亡率符合标准化的系统评价:它是否会促进专业发展、系统改进、临床医生参与和增强患者安全文化?","authors":"Emily J Steel, Monika Janda, Shayaun Jamali, Michelle Winning, Bryan Dai, Kylie Sellwood","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review of Morbidity and Mortality Meeting Standardization: Does It Lead to Improved Professional Development, System Improvements, Clinician Engagement, and Enhanced Patient Safety Culture?\",\"authors\":\"Emily J Steel, Monika Janda, Shayaun Jamali, Michelle Winning, Bryan Dai, Kylie Sellwood\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001184\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001184","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述旨在更好地了解标准化发病率和死亡率会议(M&Ms)对学习、系统改进、临床医生参与和患者安全文化的影响。方法:使用一系列文本词、同义词和主题标题对三个电子数据库进行检索,以确定M&M会议的主要概念。根据纳入标准对2012年10月(早期综述结束日期)至2021年2月期间发表的文章进行评估,并对纳入的研究进行专题综合。结果:在《covid - ence》杂志的摘要和全文审查后,从确定的824项研究中,有16项符合资格标准。研究大多是调查(n = 13),主要从M&M主席和参与者的角度评估有效性,而不是评估患者预后的客观改善。与M&M过程标准化相关的最普遍主题是病例选择(n = 15)和管理(n = 12)。质量改进和教育的目标同样普遍(各有12项研究),但一些研究报告称这两个目标是相互冲突的,而不是互补的。临床医生参与、患者安全文化、组织治理和领导被认为是有效的并购管理的促进因素。结论:没有足够的证据来指导m&m的最佳实践,但是在组织领导和行政支持下实施的标准化结构和过程与m&m有关,这些m&m解决了与学习和系统改进相关的目标。根据参与者的角色和学科,对m&m结构和流程的标准化有不同的看法,临床医生的参与对于支持安全和质量改进的文化至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Cioccari et al. Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support for Apixaban Dosing in a Community Teaching Hospital. Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization. Advancing Patient Safety: Harnessing Multimedia Tools to Alleviate Perioperative Anxiety and Pain. Translation and Comprehensive Validation of the Hebrew Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS 2.0).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1