ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Delirium-related adverse events and malpractice claims in Japan: an exploratory comparative analysis of national adverse event data and closed claims.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundDelirium occurs in 10%-30% of older hospitalized adults and is associated with adverse events and medical dispute risk. This study investigated patterns of delirium-related adverse events and medical disputes in Japan.
methodsWe conducted an exploratory comparative analysis of adverse events from the Japan Council for Quality Health Care (n = 743) and closed medical dispute claims from a major medical malpractice insurer in Japan (n = 32) from 2017 to 2021. Failure modes were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification for Patient Safety and analyzed using Fisher's exact test and Firth's bias-reduced logistic regression.
resultsManagement failures occurred in 92.7% of adverse events but only 50.0% of claims. The distribution of failure modes differed between the groups (p < 0.001). Diagnosis and medication failures occurred in 4.3% of adverse events but accounted for 37.5% of claims. Mortality was higher among closed claims (31.3%) than adverse events (6.7%) (p < 0.001). Non-management failures showed higher liability (62.5% vs. 43.8%, OR = 2.14, 95% CI: 0.55-8.29) and litigation rates (18.8% vs. 6.3%, OR = 3.50, 95% CI: 0.32-37.9) compared to management failures, although statistical significance was not achieved, possibly due to small sample sizes.
conclusionsNational adverse event reports and closed claims captured different aspects of delirium-related harm. Management events predominated in adverse event reports, whereas diagnostic and medication-related failures were more visible in closed claims than in adverse event reports. These exploratory findings support using complementary data sources to inform delirium safety strategies.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.