{"title":"对一家小动物多专科兽医教学医院发病率和死亡率会议(M&Ms)报告的错误和事件进行分类。","authors":"G Giles, LA Boland, N Kirkwood, MP Ward, A Quain","doi":"10.1111/avj.13426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Errors in veterinary clinical settings can lead to patient harm. Morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) are forums to discuss errors and incidents that can lead or have led to adverse outcomes, potential harm or unsafe conditions, with the purpose of improving patient safety in future. Despite growing implementation of M&Ms in veterinary medicine, their effectiveness in improving future patient safety may be constrained by the need for absolute confidentiality during meetings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To pilot the use of a simple framework to categorise errors and incidents triggering M&Ms in a multi-specialty Australian veterinary teaching hospital.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methodology</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective analysis of deidentified M&M summaries over 5 years (2018–2023) from a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital. Animal demographic and incident information were extracted, classified by incident type and severity of harm adapted from Wallis and colleagues (2019). Descriptive statistics were produced for error category, severity, incident type and quarter of the year they occurred in. Recommendations were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were 68 cases in total. The most common overall errors were oversight (n = 26/25.0%), drug (n = 20/19.2%), iatrogenic (n = 17, 16.3%) and staff (n = 17, 16.3%). Most cases resulted in temporary harm (n = 36, 52.9%), though 20.6% (n = 14) resulted in death, euthanasia or permanent harm. The most frequent recommendations were ‘improving communications and record keeping’, improving staff training’ and ‘ensuring appropriate equipment is available’.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Categorisation of errors using this simple framework can facilitate sharing of information which can be used to refine practices and improve animal safety, without compromising confidentiality of M&M meetings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8661,"journal":{"name":"Australian Veterinary Journal","volume":"103 5","pages":"267-275"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/avj.13426","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Categorising reported errors and incidents from morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) in a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital\",\"authors\":\"G Giles, LA Boland, N Kirkwood, MP Ward, A Quain\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/avj.13426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Errors in veterinary clinical settings can lead to patient harm. Morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) are forums to discuss errors and incidents that can lead or have led to adverse outcomes, potential harm or unsafe conditions, with the purpose of improving patient safety in future. Despite growing implementation of M&Ms in veterinary medicine, their effectiveness in improving future patient safety may be constrained by the need for absolute confidentiality during meetings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To pilot the use of a simple framework to categorise errors and incidents triggering M&Ms in a multi-specialty Australian veterinary teaching hospital.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methodology</h3>\\n \\n <p>A retrospective analysis of deidentified M&M summaries over 5 years (2018–2023) from a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital. Animal demographic and incident information were extracted, classified by incident type and severity of harm adapted from Wallis and colleagues (2019). Descriptive statistics were produced for error category, severity, incident type and quarter of the year they occurred in. Recommendations were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There were 68 cases in total. The most common overall errors were oversight (n = 26/25.0%), drug (n = 20/19.2%), iatrogenic (n = 17, 16.3%) and staff (n = 17, 16.3%). Most cases resulted in temporary harm (n = 36, 52.9%), though 20.6% (n = 14) resulted in death, euthanasia or permanent harm. The most frequent recommendations were ‘improving communications and record keeping’, improving staff training’ and ‘ensuring appropriate equipment is available’.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Categorisation of errors using this simple framework can facilitate sharing of information which can be used to refine practices and improve animal safety, without compromising confidentiality of M&M meetings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Veterinary Journal\",\"volume\":\"103 5\",\"pages\":\"267-275\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/avj.13426\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Veterinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/avj.13426\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Veterinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/avj.13426","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Categorising reported errors and incidents from morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) in a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital
Background
Errors in veterinary clinical settings can lead to patient harm. Morbidity and mortality meetings (M&Ms) are forums to discuss errors and incidents that can lead or have led to adverse outcomes, potential harm or unsafe conditions, with the purpose of improving patient safety in future. Despite growing implementation of M&Ms in veterinary medicine, their effectiveness in improving future patient safety may be constrained by the need for absolute confidentiality during meetings.
Objective
To pilot the use of a simple framework to categorise errors and incidents triggering M&Ms in a multi-specialty Australian veterinary teaching hospital.
Methodology
A retrospective analysis of deidentified M&M summaries over 5 years (2018–2023) from a small animal multi-specialty veterinary teaching hospital. Animal demographic and incident information were extracted, classified by incident type and severity of harm adapted from Wallis and colleagues (2019). Descriptive statistics were produced for error category, severity, incident type and quarter of the year they occurred in. Recommendations were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.
Results
There were 68 cases in total. The most common overall errors were oversight (n = 26/25.0%), drug (n = 20/19.2%), iatrogenic (n = 17, 16.3%) and staff (n = 17, 16.3%). Most cases resulted in temporary harm (n = 36, 52.9%), though 20.6% (n = 14) resulted in death, euthanasia or permanent harm. The most frequent recommendations were ‘improving communications and record keeping’, improving staff training’ and ‘ensuring appropriate equipment is available’.
Conclusion
Categorisation of errors using this simple framework can facilitate sharing of information which can be used to refine practices and improve animal safety, without compromising confidentiality of M&M meetings.
期刊介绍:
Over the past 80 years, the Australian Veterinary Journal (AVJ) has been providing the veterinary profession with leading edge clinical and scientific research, case reports, reviews. news and timely coverage of industry issues. AJV is Australia''s premier veterinary science text and is distributed monthly to over 5,500 Australian Veterinary Association members and subscribers.