MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410427208 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000006090

Teaming to Revitalize the Morbidity and Mortality Conference

2025· article· en· W4410427208 on OpenAlexaff
Neela Nataraj, June Tome, Melissa H. Bogin, Gretchen A. Colbenson, Elizabeth W. Beiermann, Abigail K. Wegehaupt, John T. Ratelle

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsDoug Bragg Enterprises (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVettingCurriculumPsychological interventionMedicineTimelinePatient safetyQuality managementMedical educationMultidisciplinary approachFamily medicineNursingPsychologyHealth careManagementManagement systemPolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: Teaming is a conceptual approach to collaboration in dynamic environments. The internal medicine (IM) morbidity and mortality conference (M&M) is an environment where dynamic collaboration is essential to achieve educational and patient safety goals. APPROACH: Teaming principles were applied to revitalize the Mayo Clinic IM Residency M&M. All 104 Mayo Clinic postgraduate year (PGY) 2 residents participated in this curriculum in academic years July 2021 to June 2023. Rooted in project management and leadership principles, teaming fosters adaptation and collaboration, making it well suited for analyzing patient safety events (PSEs). A resident-led, faculty-mentored Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (QIPS) Council implemented a teaming-based M&M redesign in July 2021 that included a case selection tool, case vetting by the QIPS Council, and a structured timeline for M&M that ensured effective engagement with multidisciplinary stakeholders. These interventions culminated in a rebranded M&M in which interprofessional institutional leaders (i.e., special guests) were invited to discuss system-wide issues related to the PSE, creating a forum for discussion and identification of improvement opportunities. OUTCOMES: Evaluations on the M&M curriculum were completed by 74 of 104 PGY-2 residents (71.2%). Results showed significant improvements before versus after M&M in residents' ability to identify PSEs (57 [77%] vs 69 [93.2%], P = .002), confidence in reporting (50 [67.6%] vs 72 [97.2%], P < .001), analyzing PSEs (44 [59.5%] vs 70 [94.6%], P < .001), and belief that M&M would improve future patient care (58 [78.4%] vs 70 [94.6%], P = .004). Sixty-one residents (82.4%) agreed that participating in M&M would change their future practice. NEXT STEPS: Teaming has transformed the IM residency M&M by fostering effective collaboration among a diverse group of residents and institutional leaders. The next step is to apply the teaming framework to other areas of the residency curriculum where dynamic teamwork is needed.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207