Do pharmacists have the most potential for patient safety in Japan? Learning from a 2010 nationwide survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Unlike in many other countries, patient safety (PS) in Japan has been promoted under the social insurance medical fee schedule, with the implementation of preferential medical fee paid to medical institutions as incentives. Meanwhile, many hospitals do not assign a full-time physician as PS manager at PS division due to the shortage of physicians.Objective: The Health Ministry in Japan has been promoting PS by utilizing the preferential patient safety countermeasure fee (PPSCF) since 2006. This study aims to address the potential of pharmacists for PS at hospitals implementing the PPSCF.Methods: A nationwide questionnaire survey targeting 2,674 hospitals with the PPSCF was performed from 2010 to 2011. Of the 669 hospitals that responded, 627 hospitals were eligible for analysis, including 178 hospitals implementing PPSCF 1 with 400 beds or more (group A), 286 hospitals implementing PPSCF 1 with 399 beds or fewer (group B), and 163 hospitals implementing PPSCF 2 (group C).Results: Although the mean values of PS activities for nurses were the highest among physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, the values per person recalculated for pharmacists were the highest, and the ranges of the values per person for pharmacists were narrowest across the three professional groups. For example, the number per person of incident reports filed in group A was 2.37 ± 0.30 for pharmacists, 1.14 ± 0.11 for physicians, and 2.09 ± 0.31 for nurses (p = .002). For pharmacists, those values were 2.37 ± 0.30 in group A, 2.43 ± 0.14 in group B and 2.35 ± 0.19 in group C (p = .802).Conclusions: Across health professionals, pharmacists may have the most potential for PS under the social insurance medical fee schedule 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".