ArticleJMA journal2026
Medical Accident Investigation System of Japan in Malpractice Litigation: A Non-Punitive Reporting System?
Article in JMA journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of medical errors on healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional propensity score-matched comparison of second victim syndrome between Japan and the United States.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Judicial evaluation of medical consent for patients with impaired decision-making capacity in Japan: a retrospective observational study of court decisions and ethical implications.BMC medical ethics · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The investigation and reporting of medical accidents are important to prevent medical errors and ensure patient safety. A successful reporting system should be non-punitive, meaning that reporters are free from any reprisals that arise owing to their reporting of a medical incident. Methods: In this study, we reviewed all lawsuits involving reports in Japan's Medical Accident Investigation System, identified using a Japanese database of lawsuits (https://www.westlawjapan.com/). We examined the basic characteristics of medical accident cases and how these reports were cited in judgments in medical malpractice litigation. Results: A total of 13 cases, including 15 reports, were collected in this study. Two judgments cited two kinds of reports: those conducted in-hospital and reports prepared by the Medical Accident Investigation and Support Center. Twelve reports (80.0%) were provided by the bereaved family, and four reports (26.7%) were entered into evidence as exhibits for the determination of negligence. Nine reports (60.0%) were cited as evidence of negligence; among these, six reports included content establishing negligence among medical professionals. At least three reports provided grounds for the establishment of negligence in the judgment. Conclusions: We described the basic characteristics of malpractice lawsuits related to the medical accident reporting system established under Japanese law. The current situation of reports provided in medical malpractice lawsuits in Japan indicates discrepancies between their use and the purpose of a non-punitive reporting system. Systems to ensure patient safety should be separate and distinct from those intended to report negligence by medical professionals.
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.