OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and generalizability of a new morbidity and mortality conference (MMC) model to improve educational value and increase opportunities for systems change in an inclusive, non-judgmental manner. METHODS: This prospective, multi-institutional study evaluated the implementation of a novel MMC model among three geographically diverse academic urology departments. Each institution received training in implementing the M-PROVE model. Participant perceptions of the conference were assessed using 5-point Likert scale surveys administered at baseline and 3 months post-intervention, and responses were compared using two-tailed unpaired Student t-tests. Program leadership was also surveyed post-intervention on implementation feasibility. RESULTS: 65 pre-intervention responses and 54 post-intervention responses were collected. Results demonstrated significant improvement across all questions focusing on quality/relevance, practice/systems change, inclusiveness, educational value, and satisfaction. The question related to MMCs being a non-threatening environment showed improvement, but did not reach statistical significance. The average score across all questions improved from 3.70 to 4.17 (p<0.001). Attendee role, gender, and the number of conferences attended did not affect the differences. Postintervention feasibility surveys revealed ease with adoption, worthwhile implementation, and continued use of M-PROVE. Challenges included faculty recruitment and time restraints. CONCLUSIONS: A novel, standardized morbidity and mortality conference focused on education, inclusion, systems change, and quality improvement can be successfully expanded to geographically distinct academic institutions with similar improvement in conference attendee satisfaction and perceived value of the conference.
Leng et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: