Recommendations for Conducting Mortality and Morbidity Meetings Derived from Perceptions of Faculty and Residents, and Qualitative Analysis of Records

Introduction: Even though Mortality and Morbidity meetings (M&Ms) are incorporated into postgraduate training programs for imparting the attributes of self-appraisal, audit and quality control, they are not uniformly structured across institutes. This study describes the pattern of conducting M&M at a Medical College in North Karnataka in the context of the perceptions of faculty and residents of our medical college and proposes recommendations.

Aim: To generate recommendations for conducting structured M&Ms meetings derived from the perceptions of faculty and residents, and prior feasibility experience at a medical college hospital.

Materials and Methods: The present mixed method study was conducted in the Department of General medicine, SDM College of Medical Sciences and Hospital, Dharwad, Karnataka, India, in the month of July 2022. The perceptions of faculty and residents of medicine were obtained by a paper survey. The results of the survey were compiled and analysed by the one of the authors. The responses were matched with the records of M&Ms as conducted in the Department of General Medicine from November 2017 to May 2019. The cases were thematically analysed as deviation from standard protocols of care, multidisciplinary consults, iatrogenic cause of death, unresolved diagnosis and system failure by other authors. Any recommendations recorded were noted. The attendance for such meetings were measured as a surrogate of importance attached. Data was entered in the Microsoft Excel spread sheet. Descriptive statistics were calculated by frequency and proportions for qualitative variables.

Results: A total number of 150 participants (65 were faculty including senior residents and the remaining 85 were postgraduate residents) completed the survey. The participants of the survey preferred the presentation by 3rd year residents and junior faculty. While selecting the cases for M&Ms, they preferred systematic selection turn-wise. The participants of the survey considered that while analysing M&M cases; conflicts in multidisciplinary consults, iatrogenic cause of death, human error and deviation from standard protocols of care should be emphasised. During November 2017 to May 2019, a total of 38 M&Ms were held (19 mortality and 19 morbidity meetings). The criterion for mortality case selection was subjective. Five cases were presented during each meeting. Predominant case presentations included interdepartmental transfer issues and procedural lapses. The Department of General Medicine had 30 postgraduate residents and 25 faculty members. The average attendance of residents and faculty was 90% and 78%, respectively.

Conclusion: Regularly conducted M&M in a medical college hospital are important in training medical students for audit of medical errors, quality control and appraisal in a safe environment. Prospective selection of cases by recognising potential incidents; and evidence based, structured, uniform conduct of M&Ms by participation of teams involved in healthcare can reduce errors.