Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Mar 1;20(2):138-146.
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001187. Epub 2024 Jan 19.

Implementation of Hospital Mortality Reviews: A Systematic Review

Affiliations

Implementation of Hospital Mortality Reviews: A Systematic Review

Moritz Sebastian Schönfeld et al. J Patient Saf. .

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to give an overview of the published literature on the implementation of mortality reviews in hospital settings.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and Web of Science databases up to August 2022 for studies describing implementation or results of implementation of hospital mortality reviews published in English or German. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Two independent reviewers screened the title/abstract and the full text of potentially relevant records and extracted data using a standardized form. We synthesized and integrated quantitative and qualitative findings narratively following a convergent segregated mixed methods review approach.

Results: From the 884 studies screened, 18 publications met all inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Observed mortality rates reported in 10 publications ranged from 0.4% to 7.8%. In 10 publications, mortality reviews were implemented as a multistep process. In 7 publications, structured mortality review meetings were implemented. Key aspects of success in developing and implementing mortality reviews in hospitals were involvement of multiple stakeholders, providing enough resources for included staff, and constant monitoring and adaption of the processes.

Conclusions: Although awareness of hospital mortality reviews has increased over the last decades, published research in this area is still rare. Our results may inform hospitals considering development and implementation of mortality reviews by providing key aspects and lessons learned from existing implementation experiences.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors disclose no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

References

    1. Institute Of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. In: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System . Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2000.
    1. NHS England. Learning from deaths in the NHS. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/patient-safety/learning-from-deaths-in-the-nhs . Accessed May 22, 2023.
    1. Royal College of Physicians. National Mortality Case Record Review Programme. Available at: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/national-mortality-case-record-revi... . Accessed May 22, 2023.
    1. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—The third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ . 2016;353:i2139.
    1. Schrappe M. APS-Weißbuch Patientensicherheit . Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2018.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources