ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Differences in contributing factors to diagnostic errors between physicians and allied health professionals: a nationwide analysis in Japan.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiagnostic errors significantly contribute to adverse events, patient harm and malpractice claims. While most research focuses on physicians, allied health professionals (AHPs) also play a critical role in diagnostic processes. Existing studies, primarily based on medical-record reviews, often overlook communication gaps and team dynamics affecting diagnostic accuracy. This study aims to (1) describe the overall characteristics and patterns of diagnostic errors reported in the national adverse-event database and (2) compare the clinical features, diagnostic processes and contributing factors between cases involving physicians and those involving AHPs.
methodsWe examined diagnostic-error reports from 1631 hospitals in the Japan Council for Quality Healthcare database (2010-2023). Cases were identified using predefined keywords, and two independent physicians assessed them using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument and Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy. Contributing factors were analysed, and statistical methods explored error patterns and stakeholder comparisons.
resultsAmong 147 654 event reports, 445 cases involved diagnostic errors. The most common errors occurred in diagnostic testing, assessment and follow-up, particularly misinterpretation of pathological or radiological reports on new injuries during hospitalisation. Physicians were the primary responsible providers (79.3%), while nurses were involved in 19.3% of cases. DEER taxonomy analysis revealed that nurses were more associated with errors in presentation, history-taking and physical examination (p<0.001). Additionally, patient-related factors, observation, reporting and training played a significantly greater role in errors involving nurses than physicians (p<0.001). DISCUSSION: By leveraging expert-assessed unstructured data, this study provides a broader perspective on diagnostic safety. Findings highlight the critical role of AHPs in diagnostic errors. Our study underscores the need for targeted, profession-specific interventions embedded within broader interprofessional initiatives to effectively reduce diagnostic errors and enhance patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.