Talk:Morbidity and mortality conference

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Only at "academic medical centers" and "large private medical and surgical practices"? Only reviewing "mistakes occurung duruing the care of patients"?

There are two lines in the article which I feel may provide an inaccurately limited scope of the M&M practice: "held by medical services at academic medical centers and by most large private medical and surgical practices" and "peer reviews of mistakes occurring during the care of patients". The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, have a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which usually discuss results of outbreak, immunization, and the like. The CDC is neither an "academic medical center" or a "private medical [or] surgical practice".

Also, I believe M&M conferences will occasionally discuss things other than "mistakes occuring during the care of patients". For example, I believe that treatment of rare illness, or "unusual" treatments which were a complete success may be shared in this forum (both of which would definitely be learning experiences, but neither of which necessarily had "mistakes" made).

I'll have to think more about a proposed "corrected wording", but I wanted to bring this up. Dmcmorris (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Citations in Second Paragraph

The overall purpose of Morbidity and Mortality Conferences depicted in the first paragraph seems to be quite neutral, and all of the presented facts appear to be cited with reliable sources. However, the origin of the Morbidity and Mortality Conferences described in the second paragraph has no citations whatsoever. The article,"Reconceiving the Morbidity and Mortality Conference in an Era of Big Data: An "Unexpected" Outcomes Approach," mentions the fact that the M&M conferences were originally introduced by Ernest Codman in the early 20th century. Nonetheless, there is no other evidence present in this particular article for the claims made about him losing his staff privileges. Kpatel1214 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]