Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36732783›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2023

Comparison of physicians' and dentists' incident reports in open data from the Japan Council for Quality Health Care: a mixed-method study.

Naomi Akiyama, Tomoya Akiyama, Hideaki Sato, Takeru Shiroiwa, Mitsuo Kishi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Naomi AkiyamaSchool of Nursing, Gifu University of Health Science, 2-92 Higashi Uzura, Gifu City, Gifu Prefecture, 500-8281, Japan. nakiyama888@gmail.com.
Tomoya AkiyamaCenter for Postgraduate Clinical Training and Career Development, Nagoya University Hospital, 65 Tsurumai, Syowaku, Nagoya City, Aichi Prefecture, 466-8560, Japan.
Hideaki SatoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Asahikawa Medical University, 2-1-1 Midorigaoka Higashi, Asahikawa City, Hokkaido, 078-8510, Japan.
Takeru ShiroiwaCenter for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (C2H), National Institute of Public Health (NIPH), 2-3-6 Minami, Wako City, Saitama Prefecture, 351-0197, Japan.
Mitsuo KishiSchool of Dentistry, Iwate Medical University, 19-1 Uchimaru, Morioka City, Iwate Prefecture, 020-8505, Japan.

Funding

Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research 20K18889
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient safety is associated with patient outcomes. However, there is insufficient evidence of patient safety in the dental field. This study aimed to compare incidents reported by dentists and physicians, compare the type of errors made by them, and identify how dentists prevent dental errors.

methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted using open data from the Japan Council for Quality Health Care database. A total of 6071 incident reports submitted for the period 2016-2020 were analyzed; the number of dentists' incident reports was 144, and the number of physicians' incident reports was 5927.

resultsThe percentage of dental intern reporters was higher than that of medical intern reporters (dentists: n = 12, 8.3%; physicians: n = 180, 3.0%; p = 0.002). The percentage of reports by dentists was greater than that by physicians: wrong part of body treated (dentists: n = 26, 18.1%; physicians: n = 120, 2.0%; p < 0.001), leaving foreign matter in the body (dentists: n = 15, 10.4%; physicians: n = 182, 3.1%; p < 0.001), and accidental ingestion (dentists: n = 8, 5.6%; physicians: n = 8, 0.1%; p < 0.001), and aspiration of foreign body (dentists: n = 5, 3.4%; physicians: n = 33, 0.6%; p = 0.002). The percentage of each type of prevention method utilized was as follows: software 27.8% (n = 292), hardware (e.g., developing a new system) 2.1% (n = 22), environment (e.g., coordinating the activities of staff) 4.2% (n = 44), liveware (e.g., reviewing procedure, double checking, evaluating judgement calls made) 51.6% (n = 542), and liveware-liveware (e.g., developing adequate treatment plans, conducting appropriate postoperative evaluations, selecting appropriate equipment and adequately trained medical staff) 14.3% (n = 150).

conclusionHardware and software and environment components accounted for a small percentage of the errors made, while the components of liveware and liveware-liveware errors were larger. Human error cannot be prevented by individual efforts alone; thus, a systematic and holistic approach needs to be developed by the medical community.

Indexed as

DentistsPhysiciansQuality of Health CareDelivery of Health CareHumansIncidental FindingsJapanMedical ErrorsPatient SafetyAdverse eventContent analysisDentistryErrorIncident reportInternMixed-methods studyPatient safetySHELL model

Identifiers

PMID36732783
PMCPMC9896658

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.