Objective Geriatric screening followed by a more detailed assessment and intervention is recommended for older adults with cancer. However, little is known regarding how the geriatric screening covered by Japanese health insurance is used for hospitalized older cancer patients. We surveyed all hospitals in Japanese Association of Clinical Cancer Centers (JACCC) to explore the current use of this approach. Methods The JACCC member hospitals specialize in cancer care from prevention, through diagnosis and treatment, to palliative care. We mailed paper questionnaires to the presidents of the hospitals in December 2019 and collected them by February 2020. The survey requested general hospital information and asked whether (and how) such geriatric screening for hospitalized older adults with cancer was conducted. Results Twenty-six of 32 hospitals completed the survey (81%). Fourteen hospitals are cancer centers, while the remaining 12 hospitals are general hospitals which care of both cancer and non-cancer patients. Eleven hospitals (42%) performed geriatric screening and the most common use of the results was for "early discharge planning" and for "applying for long-term care insurance". Most clinicians rated the screening "somewhat" or "a little" helpful and found it most helpful for "meeting patient-post discharge needs". The most frequently reported barrier to implementation was a "lack of leadership to improve the care of older adults". Conclusion Geriatric screening was used at less than half of the major cancer centers and hospitals in Japan. One feasible solution to this problem is to establish an interprofessional workgroup at each hospital with the shared goal of providing high-quality care for this population.Objective In Japan, both medical oncologists and pulmonologists treat lung cancer patients; however, the difference in their attitude toward palliative care referral is unknown. Thus, we retrospectively investigated the difference in attitudes toward palliative care referral between medical oncologists and pulmonologists in Japan. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients with thoracic malignancy who died at Shimane University Hospital between June 2011 and October 2015. this website We compared the patients' demographics and medical history according to their doctor's specialty (i.e., medical oncologist or pulmonologist). Results We identified 182 patients, among whom 90 were treated by medical oncologists and 56 by pulmonologists at the outpatient clinic. Thirty-six patients did not undergo outpatient clinic treatment. Out of 59 patients, 22 (37.3%) referred by medical oncologists, and 7 out of 36 patients (19.4%) referred by pulmonologists, were referred to palliative care specialists in the outpatient setting (p=0.107, Fisher's exact test). The median survival time after admission to PCU was 21 (95% CI 13-32) and 9 (95% CI 5-15) days among the patients treated by medical oncologists and pulmonologists, respectively (p=0.128). Conclusion Medical oncologists are more likely to refer their patients to palliative care in the outpatient setting, thus enabling patients to receive longer end of life care in the PCU. Bridging the research gap regarding differences between the physicians' attitudes toward palliative care referral may lead to patients receiving more quality palliative care. (227 words).A 21-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital because of massive intestinal bleeding. She started hemodialysis due to myeloperoxidase antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) at 18 years of age. Her ANCA titers remained stable; however, her C-reactive protein increased on 5 mg/day prednisolone before admission. Computed tomography angiography revealed a ruptured jejunal arterial aneurysm. Transcatheter arterial embolization, blood transfusion and the reinforcement of steroid therapy resolved her symptoms of AAV. Our case of a young patient with AAV and medium-sized arterial vasculitis is rare and emphasizes that the ANCA titer does not always rise, especially in patients with nonrenal vasculitis flare-ups.A 30-year-old non-smoking man was referred to our hospital for the further examination of abnormal shadows revealed by chest X-ray. He had mild shortness of breath. Chest computed tomography revealed a fine-grained dendritic shadow with diffuse calcification in both lungs and as well as emphysematous changes in the upper lung lobes. A surgical lung biopsy histology revealed diffuse pulmonary ossification complicated with lung laceration, vascular disruption, hemosiderosis, and emphysema, suggesting vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (vEDS). However, the patient had no external physical signs or family history of vEDS and no COL3A1 gene mutations. We are closely monitoring this patient in the clinic.Objectives Medical litigation resulting from diagnostic errors leads to lawsuits that are time-consuming, expensive, and psychologically burdensome. Few studies have focused on internists, who are more likely to make diagnostic errors than others, with assessments of litigation in terms of system and diagnostic errors. This study explored factors contributing to internists losing lawsuits and examined whether system or diagnostic errors were more important on the outcome. Methods Data regarding 419 lawsuits against internists closed between 1961 and 2017 were extracted from a public Japanese database. Factors affecting litigation outcomes were identified by comparative analysis focusing on system and diagnostic errors, environmental factors, and differences in initial diagnoses. Results Overall, 419 malpractice claims against internists were analyzed. The rate of lawsuits being decided against internists was high (50.1%). The primary cause of litigation was diagnostic errors (213, 54%), followed by system errors (188, 45%). The foremost initial diagnostic error was "no abnormality" (17.2%) followed by ischemic heart disease (9.6%) and malignant neoplasm (8.1%). Following cause-adjustment for loss, system errors were 21.37 times more likely to lead to a loss. Losses were 6.26 times higher for diagnostic error cases, 2.49 times higher for errors occurring at night, and 3.44 times higher when "malignant neoplasm" was the first diagnosis. Conclusions This study found that system errors strongly contributed to internists' losses. Diagnostic errors, night shifts, and initial diagnoses of malignant neoplasms also significantly affected trial outcomes. Administrators must focus on both system errors and diagnostic errors to enhance the safety of patients and reduce internists' risk exposure.