Is patient safety sufficient in Japan? Differences in patient safety between Japan and the United States – Learning from the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Japan, patient safety has been promoted at all levels since the 1999 landmark adverse medical event at Yokohama City University Hospital (YCUH). However, patients do not believe that health care is becoming safer. Furthermore, two university hospitals (UHs) that were designated as “advanced treatment hospitals” had their status revoked by the Health Ministry as of June 1, 2015 due to patient safety problems. The history of patient safety in Japan can be roughly divided into two terms: 1999-2009 and since 2010. In the first term, a basic patient safety system was established that included the creation of a patient safety division and an incident-reporting system from the perspective of systems error rather than individual responsibility. Additionally, many companies have promoted the improvement and development of drugs and medical devices in collaboration with health care providers. The two recent serious medical errors at UHs seemed to occur partially due to a lack of medical ethics. Unlike in the United States (US), in Japan, there is no medical license renewal system, the organizations that govern physicians are weak, and the framework of lifelong education is inadequate. Therefore, the second term involves a mindset of quality-driven patient safety. It requires health care providers and policy makers to change their mindset toward medical ethics and patient safety by learning from the US and demands a strong organization and framework to govern physicians in Japan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".