Bispecific VEGF-A and Angiopoietin-2 Antagonist RO-101 Preclinical Efficacy in Model of Neovascular Eye Disease.

Objective: To investigate preclinical data regarding the efficacy and biocompatibility of a bispecific protein, RO-101, with effects on VEGF-A and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) for use in retinal diseases. Design: Experimental study. Subjects: Brown Norway rats and New Zealand White Cross rabbits. Methods: Preclinical study data of RO-101 in terms of target-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay binding affinity to VEGF-A and Ang-2, vitreous half-life, inhibition of target-receptor interaction, laser choroidal neovascular membrane animal model, human umbilical vein endothelial cell migration, and biocompatibility was obtained. Where applicable, study data were compared with other anti-VEGF agents. Main Outcome Measures: Binding affinity, half-life, biocompatibility, and efficacy of RO-101. Neovascularization prevention by RO-101. Results: RO-101 demonstrated a strong binding affinity for VEGF-A and Ang-2 and in vitro was able to inhibit binding to the receptor with higher affinity than faricimab. The half-life of RO-101 is comparable to or longer than current VEGF inhibitors used in retinal disease. RO-101 was found to be biocompatible with retinal tissue in Brown Norway rats. RO-101 was as effective or more effective than current anti-VEGF therapeutics in causing regression of neovascular growth in vivo. Conclusions: RO-101 is a promising candidate for use in retinal diseases. In preclinical models, RO-101 demonstrated similar or higher regression of neovascular growth to current anti-VEGF therapeutics with comparable or longer half-life. It also demonstrates a strong binding affinity for VEGF-A and Ang-2. It also was shown to be biocompatible with retinal tissue in animal studies, indicating potential compatibility for use in humans. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

The Big Three diagnostic errors through reflections of Japanese internists.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the Big Three diagnostic errors (malignant neoplasms, cardiovascular diseases, and infectious diseases) through internists' self-reflection on their most memorable diagnostic errors. METHODS: This secondary analysis study, based on a web-based cross-sectional survey, recruited participants from January 21 to 31, 2019. The participants were asked to recall the most memorable diagnostic error cases in which they were primarily involved. We gathered data on internists' demographics, time to error recognition, and error location. Factors causing diagnostic errors included environmental conditions, information processing, and cognitive bias. Participants scored the significance of each contributing factor on a Likert scale (0, unimportant; 10, extremely important). RESULTS: The Big Three comprised 54.1 % (n=372) of the 687 cases reviewed. The median physician age was 51.5 years (interquartile range, 42-58 years); 65.6 % of physicians worked in hospital settings. Delayed diagnoses were the most common among malignancies (n=64, 46 %). Diagnostic errors related to malignancy were frequent in general outpatient settings on weekdays and in the mornings and were not identified for several months following the event. Environmental factors often contributed to cardiovascular disease-related errors, which were typically identified within days in emergency departments, during night shifts, and on holidays. Information gathering and interpretation significantly impacted infectious disease diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: The Big Three accounted for the majority of cases recalled by Japanese internists. The most relevant contributing factors were different for each of the three categories. Addressing these errors may require a unique approach based on the disease associations.

Inappropriate Diagnosis of Pneumonia Among Hospitalized Adults.

Importance: Little is known about incidence of, risk factors for, and harms associated with inappropriate diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Objective: To characterize inappropriate diagnosis of CAP in hospitalized patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study, including medical record review and patient telephone calls, took place across 48 Michigan hospitals. Trained abstractors retrospectively assessed hospitalized patients treated for CAP between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were adults admitted to general care with a discharge diagnostic code of pneumonia who received antibiotics on day 1 or 2 of hospitalization. Data were analyzed from February to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Inappropriate diagnosis of CAP was defined using a National Quality Forum-endorsed metric as CAP-directed antibiotic therapy in patients with fewer than 2 signs or symptoms of CAP or negative chest imaging. Risk factors for inappropriate diagnosis were assessed and, for those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) were documented and stratified by full course (>3 days) vs brief (≤3 days) antibiotic treatment using generalized estimating equation models adjusting for confounders and propensity for treatment. Results: Of the 17 290 hospitalized patients treated for CAP, 2079 (12.0%) met criteria for inappropriate diagnosis (median [IQR] age, 71.8 [60.1-82.8] years; 1045 [50.3%] female), of whom 1821 (87.6%) received full antibiotic courses. Compared with patients with CAP, patients inappropriately diagnosed were older (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11 per decade) and more likely to have dementia (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.08) or altered mental status on presentation (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.19). Among those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes for full vs brief treatment did not differ (25.8% vs 25.6%; AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23). Full vs brief duration of antibiotic treatment among patients was associated with antibiotic-associated adverse events (31 of 1821 [2.1%] vs 1 of 258 [0.4%]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, inappropriate diagnosis of CAP among hospitalized adults was common, particularly among older adults, those with dementia, and those presenting with altered mental status. Full-course antibiotic treatment of those inappropriately diagnosed with CAP may be harmful.

Development of patient safety measures to identify inappropriate diagnosis of common infections.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate diagnosis of infections results in antibiotic overuse and may delay diagnosis of underlying conditions. Here, we describe the development and characteristics of two safety measures of inappropriate diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), the most common inpatient infections on general medicine services. METHODS: Measures were developed from guidelines and literature and adapted based on data from patients hospitalized with UTI and CAP in 49 Michigan hospitals and feedback from end-users, a technical expert panel (TEP), and a patient focus group. Each measure was assessed for reliability, validity, feasibility, and usability. RESULTS: Two measures, now endorsed by the National Quality Forum (NQF), were developed. Measure reliability (derived from 24,483 patients) was excellent (0.90 for UTI; 0.91 for CAP). Both measures had strong validity demonstrated through a) face validity by hospital users, the TEPs, and patient focus group, b) implicit case review (ĸ 0.72 for UTI; ĸ 0.72 for CAP), and c) rare case misclassification (4% for UTI; 0% for CAP) due to data errors (<2% for UTI; 6.3% for CAP). Measure implementation through hospital peer comparison in Michigan hospitals (2017 to 2020) demonstrated significant decreases in inappropriate diagnosis of UTI and CAP (37% and 32%, respectively, p < 0.001), supporting usability. CONCLUSIONS: We developed highly reliable, valid, and usable measures of inappropriate diagnosis of UTI and CAP for hospitalized patients. Hospitals seeking to improve diagnostic safety, antibiotic use, and patient care should consider using these measures to reduce inappropriate diagnosis of CAP and UTI.

Characteristics of Medical School Deans and University Hospital Directors in Japan.

This cross-sectional study investigates characteristics, including sex, postgraduate experience, and specialty, of medical school deans and university hospital directors in Japan.

A Protocol Driven Approach to Reduce Lengths of Stay for Pediatric Blunt Liver and Spleen Injury Patients.

BACKGROUND: Our institution updated blunt liver and spleen injury (BLSI) protocols in 2019 in adherence to updated American Pediatric Surgery Association (APSA) recommendations. This retrospective study compares resource utilization for pediatric BLSI patients treated under old and updated guidelines. METHODS: BLSI patients without severe non-abdomen injuries aged under 18 treated with prior (04/2015-06/2019) and updated (06/2019-12/2022) guidelines were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Each patient received an adjusted injury severity score (ISS) to control for non-BLSI injuries. Multivariate analysis examined protocol group differences while controlling for adjusted ISS and BLSI grades. Primary outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS (analyzed using Cox regression), and patient costs (linear regression). Secondary outcomes include readmission in two weeks and death rates (logistic regression). RESULTS: 176 and 170 BLSI patients were treated with old and updated protocols, respectively. Patient demographics, average BLSI grade, and adjusted ISS were similar in both groups. Patients treated with old protocols indicate decreased hazard, showing significantly more days before ICU discharge (coefficient = -0.3868, p < .0009) and hospital discharge (coefficient = -0.5507, p < .0001). Patient costs (coefficient = 0.0921, p = 0.1874) trend towards being lower in the new protocol. Readmission rates were significantly higher in the new protocol (coefficient = -1.1731, p = 0.0465), and death rates (coefficient = 0.0519, p = 0.9710) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: BLSI patients treated under new APSA guidelines compared to old guidelines had significant decreases in ICU and hospital LOS, a decreasing trend in costs, comparable death rates, but higher readmission rates. Future studies with larger sample sizes and detailed cost analysis would explore whether updated guidelines reduce patient costs and help elucidate the veracity or potential cause of the increased readmission rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic/Care Management.

Japanese Internists' Most Memorable Diagnostic Error Cases: A Self-reflection Survey.

Objective The etiologies of diagnostic errors among internal medicine physicians are unclear. To understand the causes and characteristics of diagnostic errors through reflection by those involved in them. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using a web-based questionnaire in Japan in January 2019. Over a 10-day period, a total of 2,220 participants agreed to participate in the study, of whom 687 internists were included in the final analysis. Participants were asked about their most memorable diagnostic error cases, in which the time course, situational factors, and psychosocial context could be most vividly recalled and where the participant provided care. We categorized diagnostic errors and identified contributing factors (i.e., situational factors, data collection/interpretation factors, and cognitive biases). Results Two-thirds of the identified diagnostic errors occurred in the clinic or emergency department. Errors were most frequently categorized as wrong diagnoses, followed by delayed and missed diagnoses. Errors most often involved diagnoses related to malignancy, circulatory system disorders, or infectious diseases. Situational factors were the most cited error cause, followed by data collection factors and cognitive bias. Common situational factors included limited consultation during office hours and weekends and barriers that prevented consultation with a supervisor or another department. Conclusion Internists reported situational factors as a significant cause of diagnostic errors. Other factors, such as cognitive biases, were also evident, although the difference in clinical settings may have influenced the proportions of the etiologies of the errors that were observed. Furthermore, wrong, delayed, and missed diagnoses may have distinctive associated cognitive biases.

Associations Between Hospitalist Shift Busyness, Diagnostic Confidence, and Resource Utilization: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized patients are at risk for diagnostic errors. Hospitalists caring for these patients are often multitasking when overseeing patient care. We aimed to measure hospitalist workload and understand its influences on diagnostic performance in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, pilot observational study of hospitalists admitting new patients to the hospital. Hospitalists completed an abridged Mindful Attention Awareness Tool and a survey about diagnostic confidence at shift completion. Data on differential diagnoses and resource utilization (e.g., laboratory, imaging tests ordered, and consultations) were collected from the medical record. The number of admissions and paging volume per shift were used as separate proxies for shift busyness. Data were analyzed using linear mixed effects models (continuous outcomes) or mixed effects logistic regression (dichotomous outcomes). RESULTS: Of the 53 hospitalists approached, 47 (89%) agreed to participate; complete data were available for 37 unique hospitalists who admitted 160 unique patients. Increases in admissions (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 3.82; P = 0.04) and pages (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.21; P = 0.01) were associated with increased odds of hospitalists finding it "difficult to focus on what is happening in the present." Increased pages was associated with a decrease in the number of listed differential diagnoses (coefficient, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.003; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of hospitalist busyness and its associations with factors that may influence diagnosis in a real-world environment was feasible and demonstrated important implications on physician focus and differential diagnosis.

A Statewide Quality Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Antibiotic Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) often receive unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which increases antibiotic resistance and adverse events. Objective: To determine whether diagnostic stewardship (avoiding unnecessary urine cultures) or antibiotic stewardship (reducing unnecessary antibiotic treatment after an unnecessary culture) is associated with better outcomes in reducing antibiotic use for ASB. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-year, prospective quality improvement study included hospitalized general care medicine patients with a positive urine culture among 46 hospitals participating in a collaborative quality initiative, the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. Data were collected from July 1, 2017, through March 31, 2020, and analyzed from February to October 2022. Exposure: Participation in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium with antibiotic and diagnostic stewardship strategies at hospital discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall improvement in ASB-related antibiotic use was estimated as change in percentage of patients treated with antibiotics who had ASB. Effect of diagnostic stewardship was estimated as change in percentage of patients with a positive urine culture who had ASB. Effect of antibiotic stewardship was estimated as change in percentage of patients with ASB who received antibiotics and antibiotic duration. Results: Of the 14 572 patients with a positive urine culture included in the study (median [IQR] age, 75.8 [64.2-85.1] years; 70.5% female); 28.4% (n = 4134) had ASB, of whom 76.8% (n = 3175) received antibiotics. Over the study period, the percentage of patients treated with antibiotics who had ASB (overall ASB-related antibiotic use) declined from 29.1% (95% CI, 26.2%-32.2%) to 17.1% (95% CI, 14.3%-20.2%) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.94 per quarter; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96). The percentage of patients with a positive urine culture who had ASB (diagnostic stewardship metric) declined from 34.1% (95% CI, 31.0%-37.3%) to 22.5% (95% CI, 19.7%-25.6%) (aOR, 0.95 per quarter; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97). The percentage of patients with ASB who received antibiotics (antibiotic stewardship metric) remained stable, from 82.0% (95% CI, 77.7%-85.6%) to 76.3% (95% CI, 68.5%-82.6%) (aOR, 0.97 per quarter; 95% CI, 0.94-1.01), as did adjusted mean antibiotic duration, from 6.38 (95% CI, 6.00-6.78) days to 5.93 (95% CI, 5.54-6.35) days (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.99 per quarter; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement study showed that over 3 years, ASB-related antibiotic use decreased and was associated with a decline in unnecessary urine cultures. Hospitals should prioritize reducing unnecessary urine cultures (ie, diagnostic stewardship) to reduce antibiotic treatment related to ASB.

The real-world efficacy and safety of faricimab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the TRUCKEE study - 6 month results.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Investigate real-world patients receiving faricimab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). SUBJECTS/METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective chart review was conducted on patients treated with faricimab for nAMD from February 2022 to September 2022. Collected data includes background demographics, treatment history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomic changes, and adverse events as safety markers. The main outcome measures are changes in BCVA, changes in central subfield thickness (CST) and adverse events. Secondary outcome measures included treatment intervals and presence of retinal fluid. RESULTS: After one injection of faricimab, all eyes (n = 376), previously-treated (n = 337) and treatment-naïve (n = 39) eyes demonstrated a + 1.1 letter (p = 0.035), a + 0.7 letter (p = 0.196) and a + 4.9 letter (p = 0.076) improvement in BCVA, respectively, and a - 31.3 µM (p < 0.001), a - 25.3 µM (p < 0.001) and a - 84.5 µM (p < 0.001) reduction in CST, respectively. After three injections of faricimab, all eyes (n = 94), previously-treated (n = 81) and treatment-naïve (n = 13) eyes demonstrated a + 3.4 letter (p = 0.03), a + 2.7 letter (p = 0.045) and a + 8.1 letter (p = 0.437) improvement in BCVA, and a - 43.4 µM (p < 0.001), a - 38.1 µM (p < 0.001) and a - 80.1 µM (p < 0.204) reduction in CST, respectively. One case of intraocular inflammation was observed after four injections of faricimab and resolved with topical steroids. One case of infectious endophthalmitis was treated with intravitreal antibiotics and resolved. CONCLUSIONS: Faricimab has demonstrated improvement or maintenance of visual acuity for patients with nAMD, along with rapid improvement of anatomical parameters. It has been well-tolerated with low incidence of treatable intraocular inflammation. Future data will continue to investigate faricimab for real-world patients with nAMD.

Adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection with delta and omicron variants in vaccinated versus unvaccinated US veterans: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between covid-19 vaccination types and doses with adverse outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the periods of delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variant predominance. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: US Veterans Affairs healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) who are affiliated to Veterans Affairs with a first documented SARS-CoV-2 infection during the periods of delta (1 July-30 November 2021) or omicron (1 January-30 June 2022) variant predominance. The combined cohorts had a mean age of 59.4 (standard deviation 16.3) and 87% were male. INTERVENTIONS: Covid-19 vaccination with mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna)) and adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stay in hospital, intensive care unit admission, use of ventilation, and mortality measured 30 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: In the delta period, 95 336 patients had infections with 47.6% having at least one vaccine dose, compared with 184 653 patients in the omicron period, with 72.6% vaccinated. After adjustment for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, in the delta period, two doses of the mRNA vaccines were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.43)), intensive care unit admission (0.33 (0.31 to 0.36)), ventilation (0.27 (0.24 to 0.30)), and death (0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)), compared with no vaccination. In the omicron period, receipt of two mRNA doses were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (0.60 (0.57 to 0.63)), intensive care unit admission (0.57 (0.53 to 0.62)), ventilation (0.59 (0.51 to 0.67)), and death (0.43 (0.39 to 0.48)). Additionally, a third mRNA dose was associated with lower odds of all outcomes compared with two doses: hospital admission (0.65 (0.63 to 0.69)), intensive care unit admission (0.65 (0.59 to 0.70)), ventilation (0.70 (0.61 to 0.80)), and death (0.51 (0.46 to 0.57)). The Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with better outcomes relative to no vaccination, but higher odds of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission than with two mRNA doses. BNT162b2 was generally associated with worse outcomes than mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratios between 0.97 and 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In veterans with recent healthcare use and high occurrence of multimorbidity, vaccination was robustly associated with lower odds of 30 day morbidity and mortality compared with no vaccination among patients infected with covid-19. The vaccination type and number of doses had a significant association with outcomes.

Comparing oral case presentation formats on internal medicine inpatient rounds: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: Oral case presentations - structured verbal reports of clinical cases - are fundamental to patient care and learner education. Despite their continued importance in a modernized medical landscape, their structure has remained largely unchanged since the 1960s, based on the traditional Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan (SOAP) format developed for medical records. We developed a problem-based alternative known as Events, Assessment, Plan (EAP) to understand the perceived efficacy of EAP compared to SOAP among learners. METHODS: We surveyed (Qualtrics, via email) all third- and fourth-year medical students and internal medicine residents at a large, academic, tertiary care hospital and associated Veterans Affairs medical center. The primary outcome was trainee preference in oral case presentation format. The secondary outcome was comparing EAP and SOAP on 10 functionality domains assessed via a 5-point Likert scale. We used descriptive statistics (proportion and mean) to describe the results. RESULTS: The response rate was 21% (118/563). Of the 59 respondents with exposure to both the EAP and SOAP formats, 69% (n = 41) preferred the EAP format as compared to 19% (n = 11) who preferred SOAP (p < 0.001). EAP outperformed SOAP in 8 out of 10 of the domains assessed, including advancing patient care, learning from patients, and time efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that trainees prefer the EAP format over SOAP and that EAP may facilitate clearer and more efficient communication on rounds, which in turn may enhance patient care and learner education. A broader, multi-center study of the EAP oral case presentation will help to better understand preferences, outcomes, and barriers to implementation.

Faculty Development in Academic Hospital Medicine: a Scoping Review.

This scoping review sought to identify and describe the state of academic faculty development programs in hospital medicine and other specialties. We reviewed faculty development content, structure, metrics of success including facilitators, barriers, and sustainability to create a framework and inform hospital medicine leadership and faculty development initiatives. We completed a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature and searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL (1946 to June 17, 2021) and Embase (via Elsevier, 1947 to June 17, 2021). Twenty-two studies were included in the final review, with wide heterogeneity in program design, program description, outcomes, and study design. Program design included a combination of didactics, workshops, and community or networking events; half of the studies included mentorship or coaching for faculty. Thirteen studies included program description and institutional experience without reported outcomes while eight studies included quantitative analysis and mixed methods results. Barriers to program success included limited time and support for faculty attendance, conflicting clinical commitments, and lack of mentor availability. Facilitators included allotted funding and time for faculty participation, formal mentoring and coaching opportunities, and a structured curriculum with focused skill development supporting faculty priorities. We identified heterogeneous historical studies addressing faculty development across highly variable program design, intervention, faculty targeted, and outcomes assessed. Common themes emerged, including the need for program structure and support, aligning areas of skill development with faculty values, and longitudinal mentoring/coaching. Programs require dedicated program leadership, support for faculty time and participation, curricula focused on skills development, and mentoring and sponsorship.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals' and Community Healthcare Facilities' Research Contributions on PubMed.

Purpose: Although research in general medicine is important, the contributions and characteristics of general medicine physicians (GMPs) in university hospitals (UH) and community healthcare facilities (CHF) remains unclear. Therefore, this study examines the popularity of research by affiliation, characteristics of journal publication, annual trends, and differences in impact factors (IFs) of journal publications. Methods: This study is a secondary bibliometric analysis of articles in international journals published in PubMed over the past six years (2015-2020). The analysis compared English articles published by either UH- or CHF-affiliated GMPs in Japan in terms of, among other things, article type, research field, and IF. Results: Of the 2372 articles analyzed, 1688 (71.2%) were published by physicians affiliated with UHs, 62.6% of which were original. Basic research, international collaboration, and ratio of IFs were significantly higher for such papers. In contrast, the number of CHF articles were significantly higher in the areas of clinical research and practice, with a greater proportion of case reports. There was no significant difference in IF between the disciplines within each affiliation, but the IF was the highest in experimental basic research and the lowest in medical and clinical education. In the six-year time series, the number of original papers by UHs and CHFs increased roughly twofold between 2015 and 2020, but the number of articles in the areas of medical education and healthcare quality and safety remained mostly unchanged. Conclusion: The number of international papers published by Japanese GMPs has increased since 2015, particularly in terms of original papers and clinical research from UHs. However, there was no significant difference in the IF between UH and CHF publications. Our findings can guide the development of indicators, research, and education strategies regarding Japanese GMPs' research performance.