Goals of Morbidity and Mortality meetings in paediatric acute care. A qualitative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morbidity and Mortality meetings are conducted in varied clinical contexts including paediatrics. Widely cited as an educational or quality improvement tool, the reality is more complex. In this qualitative study, the aim was to explore the perceived goals of the paediatric acute care Morbidity and Morbidity meeting. This study used semi-structured interviews and observation within a qualitative case study methodology. Data were collected in a large paediatric quaternary hospital. Analysis generated themes related to meeting observations and the participant's interpretation of meeting goals. A total of 44 interviews were conducted with 14 nurses, 29 doctors, and 1 allied health professional. Thirty-two meetings in six clinical departments were observed. Two themes were developed: complex and nuanced goals; and tensions and contest between and within goals. Meeting goals to evaluate care, learn, support, adhere, and change and respond were sometimes in competition and had varied interpretations. Morbidity and Mortality meetings in this setting are valued and occupy a complex role which reaches beyond identification of measurable patient safety interventions. Understanding goals more fully can lead to optimised conduct and meaningful measurement of efficacy. The strength in these meetings may be the way they promote an embedded safety culture, and an informed and skilled workforce.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".