MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603761558 · doi:10.1111/medu.13234

The role of morbidity and mortality rounds in medical education: a scoping review

2017· review· en· W2603761558 on OpenAlexaff
P Benassi, Lindsey MacGillivray, Ivan Silver, Sanjeev Sockalingam

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOContext (archaeology)MEDLINEMedical educationMedicineProgram evaluationHealth carePresentation (obstetrics)Patient safetyCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewPsychologyNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: There is increasing focus on how health care professionals can be trained effectively in quality improvement and patient safety principles. The morbidity and mortality round (MMR) has often been used as a tool with which to examine and teach care quality, yet little is known of its implementation and educational outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this scoping review are to examine and summarise the literature on how the MMR is designed and delivered, and to identify how it is evaluated for effectiveness in addressing medical education outcomes. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library databases was conducted for articles published from 1980 to 1 June 2016. Publications in English describing the design, implementation and evaluation of MMRs were included. A total of 67 studies were identified, including eight survey-based studies, four literature reviews, one ethnographic study, three opinion papers, two qualitative observation studies and 49 case studies of education programmes with or without formal evaluation. Study outcomes were categorised using Donald Moore's framework for the evaluation of continuing medical education (CME). RESULTS: There is much heterogeneity within the literature regarding the implementation, delivery and goals of the MMR. Common design components included explicit programme goals and objectives, the case selection process, case presentation models and some form of case analysis. Evaluation of CME outcomes for MMR were mainly limited to learner participation, satisfaction and self-assessed changes in knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The MMR is widely utilised as an educational tool to promote medical education, patient safety and quality improvement. Although evidence to guide the design and implementation of the MMR to achieve measurable CME outcomes remains limited, there are components associated with positive improvements to learning and performance outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0260.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.437 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207