Cargando…
A clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections
BACKGROUND: The introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme has led to a considerable increase in the detection of impalpable breast cancer. Patients with impalpable breast cancer typically undergo oncological resection facilitated either by the insertion of guide wi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22800678 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-6-15 |
_version_ | 1782245635860201472 |
---|---|
author | Leff, Daniel Richard Vincent, Charles Al-Mufti, Ragheed Cunningham, Deborah Darzi, Ara Hadjiminas, Dimitri J |
author_facet | Leff, Daniel Richard Vincent, Charles Al-Mufti, Ragheed Cunningham, Deborah Darzi, Ara Hadjiminas, Dimitri J |
author_sort | Leff, Daniel Richard |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme has led to a considerable increase in the detection of impalpable breast cancer. Patients with impalpable breast cancer typically undergo oncological resection facilitated either by the insertion of guide wires placed stereo-tactically or through ultra-sound guided skin markings to delineate the extent of a lesion. The need for radiological interventions on the day of surgery adds complexity and introduces the risk that a patient may accidentally transferred to the operating room directly without the image guidance procedure. CASE REPORT: A case is described of a patient who required a pre-operative ultrasound scan in order to localise an impalpable breast cancer but who was accidentally taken directly to the operating theatre (OR) and anaesthetised without pre-operative intervention. The radiologist was called to the OR and an on-table ultrasound was performed without further consequence. CONCLUSION: It is evident that breast cancer patients undergoing image-guided resection are exposed to an additional layer of clinical risks. These risks are not offset by the World Health Organisation surgical safety checklist in its present guise. Here, we review a number of simple and inexpensive changes to the system that may improve the safety of the breast cancer patient undergoing surgery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3466149 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34661492012-10-09 A clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections Leff, Daniel Richard Vincent, Charles Al-Mufti, Ragheed Cunningham, Deborah Darzi, Ara Hadjiminas, Dimitri J Patient Saf Surg Case Report BACKGROUND: The introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme has led to a considerable increase in the detection of impalpable breast cancer. Patients with impalpable breast cancer typically undergo oncological resection facilitated either by the insertion of guide wires placed stereo-tactically or through ultra-sound guided skin markings to delineate the extent of a lesion. The need for radiological interventions on the day of surgery adds complexity and introduces the risk that a patient may accidentally transferred to the operating room directly without the image guidance procedure. CASE REPORT: A case is described of a patient who required a pre-operative ultrasound scan in order to localise an impalpable breast cancer but who was accidentally taken directly to the operating theatre (OR) and anaesthetised without pre-operative intervention. The radiologist was called to the OR and an on-table ultrasound was performed without further consequence. CONCLUSION: It is evident that breast cancer patients undergoing image-guided resection are exposed to an additional layer of clinical risks. These risks are not offset by the World Health Organisation surgical safety checklist in its present guise. Here, we review a number of simple and inexpensive changes to the system that may improve the safety of the breast cancer patient undergoing surgery. BioMed Central 2012-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3466149/ /pubmed/22800678 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-6-15 Text en Copyright ©2012 Leff et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Case Report Leff, Daniel Richard Vincent, Charles Al-Mufti, Ragheed Cunningham, Deborah Darzi, Ara Hadjiminas, Dimitri J A clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections |
title | A clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections |
title_full | A clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections |
title_fullStr | A clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections |
title_full_unstemmed | A clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections |
title_short | A clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections |
title_sort | clinical "near miss" highlights risk management issues surrounding ultrasound-guided and wire-localised breast resections |
topic | Case Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22800678 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-6-15 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leffdanielrichard aclinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT vincentcharles aclinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT almuftiragheed aclinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT cunninghamdeborah aclinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT darziara aclinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT hadjiminasdimitrij aclinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT leffdanielrichard clinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT vincentcharles clinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT almuftiragheed clinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT cunninghamdeborah clinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT darziara clinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections AT hadjiminasdimitrij clinicalnearmisshighlightsriskmanagementissuessurroundingultrasoundguidedandwirelocalisedbreastresections |