Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32745150›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Factors and impact of physicians' diagnostic errors in malpractice claims in Japan.

Takashi Watari, Yasuharu Tokuda, Shohei Mitsuhashi, Kazuya Otuki, Kaori Kono, Nobuhiro Nagai, Kazumichi Onigata, Hideyuki Kanda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Takashi WatariPostgraduate Clinical Training Center, Shimane University Hospital, Izumo, Shimane, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9322-8455
Yasuharu TokudaOkinawa Muribushi Project for Teaching Hospitals, Okinawa, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9325-7934
Shohei MitsuhashiShimane University Faculty of Medicine, Izumo, Shimane, Japan.
Kazuya OtukiShimane University Faculty of Medicine, Izumo, Shimane, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5010-7274
Kaori KonoShimane University Faculty of Medicine, Izumo, Shimane, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9390-8314
Nobuhiro NagaiShimane University Faculty of Medicine, Izumo, Shimane, Japan.
Kazumichi OnigataPostgraduate Clinical Training Center, Shimane University Hospital, Izumo, Shimane, Japan.
Hideyuki KandaDepartment of Environmental Medicine & Public Health, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, Izumo, Shimane, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic errors are prevalent and associated with increased economic burden; however, little is known about their characteristics at the national level in Japan. This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and indemnity payment in cases of diagnostic errors using Japan's largest database of national claims.

methodsWe analyzed characteristics of diagnostic error cases closed between 1961 and 2017, accessed through the national Japanese malpractice claims database. We compared diagnostic error-related claims (DERC) with non-diagnostic error-related claims (non-DERC) in terms of indemnity, clinical outcomes, and factors underlying physicians' diagnostic errors.

resultsAll 1,802 malpractice claims were included in the analysis. The median patient age was 33 years (interquartile range = 10-54), and 54.2% were men. Deaths were the most common outcome of claims (939/1747; 53.8%). In total, 709 (39.3%, 95% CI: 37.0%-41.6%) DERC cases were observed. The adjusted total billing amount, acceptance rate, adjusted median claims payments, and proportion of deaths were significantly higher in DERC than non-DERC cases. Departments of internal medicine and surgery were 1.42 and 1.55 times more likely, respectively, to have DERC cases than others. Claims involving the emergency room (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.88) and outpatient office (adjusted OR = 2.87) were more likely to be DERC than other cases. The initial diagnoses most likely to lead to diagnostic error were upper respiratory tract infection, non-bleeding digestive tract disease, and "no abnormality."

conclusionsCases of diagnostic errors produced severe patient outcomes and were associated with high indemnity. These cases were frequently noted in general exam and emergency rooms as well as internal medicine and surgery departments and were initially considered to be common, mild diseases.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildDiagnostic ErrorsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansInternal MedicineJapanMaleMalpracticeMiddle AgedSurgery Department, Hospital

Identifiers

PMID32745150
PMCPMC7398551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.