Impact of a Monthly Compliance Review on Interventional Radiology Adverse Event Reporting

Our aims were to analyze the change in interventional radiology physician major adverse event (AE) reporting after initiation of a monthly morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference compliance review and to describe the association of procedure class and potentially preventable errors with major AE occurrence.

In late 2010, to motivate timely reporting, we instituted a structured monthly M&M conference review confirming whether each complication warranted institutional AE reporting and whether timely reporting had occurred. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the M&M conference minutes over the subsequent 5 years. Logistic regression was used to model the change of AE reporting over time as well as the association of procedure class with the risk of an AE. Each AE was classified as to whether it seemed potentially preventable.

There were 46,660 patient encounters, 1,160 (2.5%) major and minor complications, and 462 (1.0%) reportable AEs. From 2011 to 2015, the percentage of reportable AEs reported increased from 67% to 98%. The number of months from initiation of the M&M conference review was a significant predictor of the likelihood of AE reporting (odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.08, P < .0001). Procedure class was strongly associated with the risk of a reportable AE (P < .0001). At least 111 (24%) reportable AEs were potentially preventable.

Increasing AE reporting occurred after initiation of a monthly M&M conference compliance review. The incidence of reportable AEs was strongly associated with procedure class, and a significant percentage of these events were potentially preventable.