Indolent CD8+ primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma involving the eyelid of an adolescent.

Primary cutaneous acral CD8+ T-cell lymphoma (PCACTL) is currently a provisional entity defined as a rare cutaneous proliferation of atypical CD8+ lymphocytes that preferentially involves acral sites and has a good prognosis. We present a case of primary cutaneous CD8+ T-cell lymphoma involving the eyelid of an adolescent male. The case shares features with PCACTL, including indolent clinical behavior and expression of CD68 in a Golgi-associated dot-like pattern; however, other features differ significantly from PCACTL as currently defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). These features include ulceration, expression of CD56, granzyme B, and perforin, and a high proliferative index. Given these discrepancies, our case is currently best classified as a CD8+ primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified. We review the differential diagnosis for this case and suggest expanding the definition of PCACTL.

An unusual case of cutaneous Waldenström macroglobulinemia with the MYD88 L265P mutation.

Waldenström macroglobulinemia is a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma with bone marrow involvement and a monoclonal IgM gammopathy. Infiltration of the skin by neoplastic cells is very rare, and it can be difficult to distinguish from marginal zone lymphoma. The MYD88 L265P mutation is strongly associated with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and it may be helpful in differentiating the two disorders, although the presence of this mutation is not specific, and other factors must be considered when making the final diagnosis. We present a diagnostically challenging case of cutaneous Waldenström macroglobulinemia in which the MYD88 L265P mutation was identified in the skin but not in the bone marrow, due to a low tumor burden.

Are we missing the near misses in the OR?-underreporting of safety incidents in pediatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Electronic hospital variance reporting systems used to report near misses and adverse events are plagued by underreporting. The purpose of this study is to prospectively evaluate directly observed variances that occur in our pediatric operating room and to correlate these with the two established variance reporting systems in our hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Trained individuals directly observed pediatric perioperative patient care for 6 wk to identify near misses and adverse events. These direct observations were compared to the established handwritten perioperative variance cards and the electronic hospital variance reporting system. All observations were analyzed and categorized into an additional six safety domains and five variance categories. The chi-square test was used, and P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Out of 830 surgical cases, 211 were audited by the safety observers. During this period, 137 (64%) near misses were identified by direct observation, while 57 (7%) handwritten and 8 (1%) electronic variance were reported. Only 1 of 137 observed events was reported in the handwritten variance system. Five directly observed adverse events were not reported in either of the two variance reporting systems. Safety observers were more likely to recognize time-out and equipment variances (P < 0.001). Both variance reporting systems and direct observation identified numerous policy and process issues. CONCLUSIONS: Despite multiple reporting systems, near misses and adverse events remain underreported. Identifying near misses may help address system and process issues before an adverse event occurs. Efforts need to be made to lessen barriers to reporting in order to improve patient safety.

Meaningful use and good catches: More appropriate metrics for checklist effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of utilizing surgical safety checklists has been recently questioned. We evaluated our checklist performance after implementing a program that includes checklist-related good catches. METHODS: Multifaceted interventions aimed at the preincision checklist and 5 prospective audits were conducted from 2011-2015. We documented adherence to the checklist (verbalization of each checkpoint), fidelity (meaningful performance of each checkpoint), and good catches (events with the potential to cause the patient harm but that were prevented from occurring). Good catches were divided into quality improvement-based categories (processes, medication, safety, communication, and equipment). RESULTS: A total of 1,346 checklist performances were observed (range, 144-373/yr). Adherence to the preincision checklist improved from 30% to 95% (P < .001), while adherence to the preinduction and debriefing checklists decreased (71% to 56%, P = .002) and remained unchanged (76%), respectively. Preincision fidelity decreased from 86% to 76% (P = .012). Good catches were identified during 16% of preincision checklist performances; process issues were most common (32%) followed by issues of medication administration (30%) and safety (22%). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a systematic checklist program resulted in significant and sustainable improvement in performance. Meaningful use and associated good catches may be more appropriate metric than actual patient harm for measuring checklist effectiveness. Although not previously described, checklist-related good catches represent an unknown benefit of checklists.