Quality gaps identified through mortality review

46Citations
Citations of this article
114Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Hospital mortality rate is a common measure of healthcare quality. Morbidity and mortality meetings are common but there are few reports of hospital-wide mortality-review processes to provide understanding of quality-of-care problems associated with patient deaths. Objective To describe the implementation and results from an institution-wide mortality-review process. Design A nurse and a physician independently reviewed every death that occurred at our multisite teaching institution over a 3-month period. Deaths judged by either reviewer to be unanticipated or to have any opportunity for improvement were reviewed by a multidisciplinary committee. We report characteristics of patients with unanticipated death or opportunity for improved care and summarise the opportunities for improved care. Results Over a 3-month period, we reviewed all 427 deaths in our hospital in detail; 33 deaths (7.7%) were deemed unanticipated and 100 (23.4%) were deemed to be associated with an opportunity for improvement. We identified 97 opportunities to improve care. The most common gap in care was: 'goals of care not discussed or the discussion was inadequate' (n=25 (25.8%)) and 'delay or failure to achieve a timely diagnosis' (n=8 (8.3%)). Patients who had opportunities for improvement had longer length of stay and a lower baseline predicted risk of death in hospital. Nurse and physician reviewers spent approximately 142h reviewing cases outside of committee meetings. Conclusions Our institution-wide mortality review found many quality gaps among decedents, in particular inadequate discussion of goals of care.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kobewka, D. M., Van Walraven, C., Turnbull, J., Worthington, J., Calder, L., & Forster, A. (2017, February 1). Quality gaps identified through mortality review. BMJ Quality and Safety. BMJ Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004735

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free