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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leff, Daniel Richard, Vincent, Charles, Al-Mufti, Ragheed, Cunningham, Deborah, Darzi, Ara, Hadjiminas, Dimitri J
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