Inas S. Khayal PhD , Rebecca L. Butcher MS, MPH , Colin H. McLeish MD, MBA , Yujia Shentu MD, MS , Amber E. Barnato MD, MPH, MS
{"title":"组织意图、组织结构和审稿人心理模型影响死亡率审查过程","authors":"Inas S. Khayal PhD , Rebecca L. Butcher MS, MPH , Colin H. McLeish MD, MBA , Yujia Shentu MD, MS , Amber E. Barnato MD, MPH, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify the factors that influence the mortality review process at health systems, including how mortality review is conducted, cases are adjudicated, and results are used.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a qualitative analysis of the mortality review processes of 6 US health systems from February 1, 2021 to June 31, 2021. The data sources included individual and small-group semi-structured interviews with mortality review team members and a content analysis of site artifacts (eg, guiding principles, chart abstraction forms, review workflows, and clinical pathways developed from past mortality reviews). We analyzed each site’s mortality review process, goals and incentives for mortality review, historical and evolving aspects of mortality review, personnel involved, and post-review use of findings.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Across the 6 systems, we interviewed a total of 24 mortality review experts and analyzed 26 site documents. We identified 3 thematic factors that influence mortality review processes: organizational intent, organizational structures for mortality review, and the mental models of individuals involved in the review process. Two subthemes emerged within organizational intent: (1) identifying preventable deaths to lower (clinical or financial) risk and (2) using death cases to guide system improvement. Sites varied in governance and decision rights concerning mortality review and adjudication, with 2 subthemes within organizational structures: (1) centralized-hierarchical and (2) decentralized or multidisciplinary. The analysis of mental models of participating reviewers revealed 2 themes: (1) confirmation of preventability and (2) identification of patterns or “signals.”</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Understanding the factors that influence mortality review allows health systems to better leverage mortality review for institutional improvement and to develop training that builds shared mental models to enhance the review process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94132,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Organizational Intent, Organizational Structures, and Reviewer Mental Models Influence Mortality Review Processes\",\"authors\":\"Inas S. Khayal PhD , Rebecca L. Butcher MS, MPH , Colin H. McLeish MD, MBA , Yujia Shentu MD, MS , Amber E. Barnato MD, MPH, MS\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.09.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify the factors that influence the mortality review process at health systems, including how mortality review is conducted, cases are adjudicated, and results are used.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a qualitative analysis of the mortality review processes of 6 US health systems from February 1, 2021 to June 31, 2021. The data sources included individual and small-group semi-structured interviews with mortality review team members and a content analysis of site artifacts (eg, guiding principles, chart abstraction forms, review workflows, and clinical pathways developed from past mortality reviews). We analyzed each site’s mortality review process, goals and incentives for mortality review, historical and evolving aspects of mortality review, personnel involved, and post-review use of findings.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Across the 6 systems, we interviewed a total of 24 mortality review experts and analyzed 26 site documents. We identified 3 thematic factors that influence mortality review processes: organizational intent, organizational structures for mortality review, and the mental models of individuals involved in the review process. Two subthemes emerged within organizational intent: (1) identifying preventable deaths to lower (clinical or financial) risk and (2) using death cases to guide system improvement. Sites varied in governance and decision rights concerning mortality review and adjudication, with 2 subthemes within organizational structures: (1) centralized-hierarchical and (2) decentralized or multidisciplinary. The analysis of mental models of participating reviewers revealed 2 themes: (1) confirmation of preventability and (2) identification of patterns or “signals.”</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Understanding the factors that influence mortality review allows health systems to better leverage mortality review for institutional improvement and to develop training that builds shared mental models to enhance the review process.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454823000620\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454823000620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
To identify the factors that influence the mortality review process at health systems, including how mortality review is conducted, cases are adjudicated, and results are used.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative analysis of the mortality review processes of 6 US health systems from February 1, 2021 to June 31, 2021. The data sources included individual and small-group semi-structured interviews with mortality review team members and a content analysis of site artifacts (eg, guiding principles, chart abstraction forms, review workflows, and clinical pathways developed from past mortality reviews). We analyzed each site’s mortality review process, goals and incentives for mortality review, historical and evolving aspects of mortality review, personnel involved, and post-review use of findings.
Results
Across the 6 systems, we interviewed a total of 24 mortality review experts and analyzed 26 site documents. We identified 3 thematic factors that influence mortality review processes: organizational intent, organizational structures for mortality review, and the mental models of individuals involved in the review process. Two subthemes emerged within organizational intent: (1) identifying preventable deaths to lower (clinical or financial) risk and (2) using death cases to guide system improvement. Sites varied in governance and decision rights concerning mortality review and adjudication, with 2 subthemes within organizational structures: (1) centralized-hierarchical and (2) decentralized or multidisciplinary. The analysis of mental models of participating reviewers revealed 2 themes: (1) confirmation of preventability and (2) identification of patterns or “signals.”
Conclusion
Understanding the factors that influence mortality review allows health systems to better leverage mortality review for institutional improvement and to develop training that builds shared mental models to enhance the review process.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
