Soumadri Sen

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottigham, England, United Kingdom

Are you Soumadri Sen?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)5.85 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Incident reporting (IR) refers to systematic documentation of adverse incidents to facilitate their appropriate investigation and institution of corrective or remedial actions, and provide data to identify risk trends for recurrent problems. Minimisation of errors and reduction in process variation is recognised as an important goal of quality management and is an essential part of continuous quality improvement. Published data on the role IR plays in cellular pathology remains scanty. In this study, the authors collected and analysed all incidents and adverse events reported in their department over a 2-year period. 584 incidents were reported (0.5% of all cases processed). The majority (59%) occurred in the pre-analytical phase of the laboratory process with 23% in the analytical and 18% in the post-analytical phases. Booking-in and specimen labelling-related incidents were the largest single group (56% of all incidents), prompting further root cause analysis, but no other obvious patterns or trends were identified, and most incidents were followed by corrective actions on an individual basis. Most incidents (79%) posed potential harm, as opposed to causing actual harm to the service or patients. Only 78 cases (14%) posed a major risk to patients, such as specimen loss or mix-up, whereas 27% were associated with moderate risk and 59% with minor or insignificant risk. Major risk incidents are relatively rare in the cellular pathology laboratory. IR should be included as an important component of a risk management strategy and clinical governance framework.
    Journal of clinical pathology 03/2012; 65(7):643-8. DOI:10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200453 · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To provide updated evidence of the outcome of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) and suspicious of malignancy (B4) diagnosed on needle core biopsy (NCB) and analyse the outcome of the different types of intraductal epithelial atypia. One-hundred and forty-nine B3 and 26 B4 NCBs diagnosed over a 2-year period (2007-2008) were compared with those diagnosed over a previous 2-year period (1998-2000). The proportion of B3 diagnoses increased from 3.1% to 4.5%, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of malignancy of a B3 core decreased from 25% to 10%. Increased diagnosis of radial scar and reductions in the PPV of lobular neoplasia and of atypical intraductal proliferation may explain the reduction in the PPV of the B3 group as a whole. There were no significant changes in the proportion of B4 diagnosis (1.1% and 0.8%) or the PPV of B4 (83% and 88%). Review of cores with intraductal atypia showed a wide range of PPVs, from 100% for suspicious of ductal carcinoma in situ, to 40% for atypical ductal hyperplasia categorized as B3, and 14% for isolated flat epithelial atypia. The study has found a decrease in the PPV for a B3 diagnosis and suggests possible explanations.
    Histopathology 03/2011; 58(4):626-32. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03786.x · 3.30 Impact Factor