Identifying Adverse Events in Pediatric Surgery: Comparing Morbidity and Mortality Conference with the NSQIP-Pediatric System.

Abstract

Recent improvements to morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference have focused on the case review system. However, case selection occurs by physician reporting, which is limited by selection bias. We compared the effectiveness of our M&M conference with the NSQIP-Pediatric (NSQIP-P) system for identifying adverse events. Complications from January 2010 to September 2015 were compared between M&M and NSQIP-P. Only M&M patients meeting NSQIP-P criteria were compared with patients from the NSQIP-P system; exclusions were studied separately. Complication rates in M&M conference before and after a 2012 format change designed to increase case reporting were also compared. Detection of mortality in M&M conference and NSQIP-P was not different. Morbidity events identified by NSQIP-P were significantly higher than M&M conference during the entire study period (194 vs 100 occurrences/1,000 cases) (p < 0.0001). Morbidity occurrences in M&M conference increased with the 2012 improvements, however, they still remained less than that identified by NSQIP-P (226 vs 141 occurrences/1,000 cases) (p < 0.0001). Of 863 patients presented in M&M conference, 210 were excluded from direct comparison because they did not meet NSQIP-P criteria. These included 62 deaths and 287 occurrences of morbidity. Their analysis in M&M conference resulted in 32 action initiatives directed at system failures. The NSQIP-P identified more complications than M&M. The M&M conference improvements increased reported cases, but they still remained lower than NSQIP-P. However, M&M conference identified events resulting in systems changes that would not have been identified by NSQIP-P. Although NSQIP-P captures occurrences to compare large patient cohorts, M&M analyzes singular failures and initiates direct interventions. Integration of these systems can optimize their usefulness in quality improvement.