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

BACKGROUND: Patient 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: The 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). CONCLUSION: Hardware 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.

Effects of caffeine on fractional flow reserve values measured using intravenous adenosine triphosphate.

We investigated the effects of caffeine intake on fractional flow reserve (FFR) values measured using intravenous adenosine triphosphate (ATP) before cardiac catheterization. Caffeine is a competitive antagonist for adenosine receptors; however, it is unclear whether this antagonism affects FFR values. Patients were evenly randomized into 2 groups preceding the FFR study. In the caffeine group (n = 15), participants were given coffee containing 222 mg of caffeine 2 h before the catheterization. In the non-caffeine group (n = 15), participants were instructed not to take any caffeine-containing drinks or foods for at least 12 h before the catheterization. FFR was performed in patients with more than intermediate coronary stenosis using the intravenous infusion of ATP at 140 µg/kg/min (normal dose) and 170 µg/kg/min (high dose), and the intracoronary infusion of papaverine. FFR was followed for 30 s after maximal hyperemia. In the non-caffeine group, the FFR values measured with ATP infusion were not significantly different from those measured with papaverine infusion. However, in the caffeine group, the FFR values were significantly higher after ATP infusion than after papaverine infusion (P = 0.002 and P = 0.007, at normal and high dose ATP vs. papaverine, respectively). FFR values with ATP infusion were significantly increased 30 s after maximal hyperemia (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001 for normal and high dose ATP, respectively). The stability of the FFR values using papaverine showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. Caffeine intake before the FFR study affected FFR values and their stability. These effects could not be reversed by an increased ATP dose.

[A case of unresectable colon cancer responding to oral leucovorin+oral tegafur/uracil].

The patient was a 63-year-old man,who first visited our hospital with the chief complaints of left lower quadrant pain and abdominal distension that had developed around November 13, 2004. On close examination, he was diagnosed with sigmoid colon cancer, multiple liver metastasis, and subileus due to a lung metastasis. His operation took place on December 12 of the same year. Intraoperatively, the sigmoid colon was firmly fixed to the retroperitonium, there was a hard node in the pouch of Douglas, and that part of the jejunum was involved. The lesion was judged to be unresectable,and thus loop colostomy, partial jejunectomy and gastrojejunostomy were performed. After the surgery,the patient was treated with 4 courses of therapy with oral Leucovorin (LV, 75 mg) +oral tegafur/uracil (UFT, 400 mg). As a result, the tumor marker levels decreased markedly, the lung metastasis was no longer observed and the liver metastases became smaller. Therefore, a second-look operation was performed on May 30, 2005. This time it was relatively easy to free the sigmoid colon. The node in the pouch of Douglas was no longer observed, and there were only 2 metastatic lesions in the liver (1 each in S 2 and S 6). Sigmoidectomy and partial hepatectomy were performed, and the stoma was closed. The patient made good progress after the operation and was discharged on the 11 th POD. At present he is receiving chemotherapy with UFT+oral LV as an outpatient. As this therapy is relatively easy to perform and imposes only a small burden on patients,we think that it may be effective not only as adjuvant chemotherapy but also as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in some patients.