Case Bias Case Basis: Expanding Morbidity and Mortality Conference to Examine the Impact of Disparities in Surgical Care

•The inclusion of a disparities discussion in weekly morbidity and mortality conference had a positive overall impact on the Department of Surgery at the study institution.•Participants agreed that disparities exist in access to surgical care, and that the intervention improved their perceptions of how disparities are addressed.•Participants felt that the integration of a disparities discussion was overall helpful, improved their knowledge of disparities in access to surgical care, and influenced their plans to address disparities in their own practices. Originally designed as a forum to discuss adverse patient events, surgery morbidity and mortality (M&M) Conference has evolved into an integral tool within surgical education where trainees at all levels are taught to critically examine decision-making. Others have expanded the scope of subsets of M&M conferences to include additional factors that influence patient outcomes, such as social determinants of health, implicit bias and structural policies that contribute to health disparities. In this study, we implemented a disparities-based discussion into our surgical department's weekly M&M conference and examined the effect(s) on participants’ understanding and perceptions of key disparities in access to surgical care. An anonymous electronic survey was sent to attendees of the Department of Surgery's M&M conference including faculty, residents and medical students prior to implementation of the intervention. The survey queried perceptions of the presence and impact of disparities in access to surgical care and how these are addressed at the study institution. The standard presenter slide template was updated to include a “Disparities Factors” section within the “Reasons for Complication” slide. After over 1 year, a postintervention survey was sent to conference attendees that included the same questions as the initial survey, as well as new questions related to the intervention. Descriptive statistics were performed on survey results, and comparisons were made for paired pre-post items. Eighty conference attendees completed the pre-intervention survey, and 70 completed the postintervention survey (22 [27.5%]; 22 [31.4%] attendings, 24 [30.0%]; 21 [30.0%] residents, 34 [42.5%]; 27 [38.6%] medical students respectively). Socioeconomics and language were most commonly identified both pre- and postintervention as the most important factors contributing to disparities in care experienced by patients at the stu