ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Pleural procedural safety in the UK: is everyone's house in order? Reflections from the BTS National Pleural Service Organisational Audit and a national review of patient safety incidents.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contemporary Pleural Drainage in Adult Practice: Image-Guided Techniques, Procedural Safety, Training Standards, and Malignant Pleural Effusion Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Training in pleural interventions: not just a matter of 'rights'?BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Role of the general medical registrar in performing out-of-hours pleural procedures: a UK national survey of trainee and trainer perspectives.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- British Thoracic Society Training Standards for Pleural Procedures.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- A Diagnostic Approach to Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.Pulmonary therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 2022 British Thoracic Society Pleural Services Organisational Audit highlighted evidence of ongoing risk of harm from pleural procedures. To better understand the underlying causes of these safety concerns we undertook a review of patient safety incidents from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS).
methodsIncident-level patient safety data from NRLS were requested from any level 3, 4 and 5 incidents describing harm resulting from pleural intervention, specifically chest drain insertion or pleural aspiration for pleural effusions (fluid), submitted between 1 April 2018 and 30 March 2022.
results256 incidents were identified. Most of these did not directly relate to a pleural procedure or its concerns and so were excluded. Ultimately, 21 incidents (including 2 deaths) were relevant. 17 involved direct organ puncture, predominantly liver (n= 13). 11 incidents involved seldinger drains, 5 blunt dissection drains and 1 involved both (not specified in 4). In only four incidents was it clearly detailed that an ultrasound-assisted approach had been used. In the remainder, the use of ultrasound was largely not detailed at all, or the approach used was not clear or inappropriate. Most (19/21) events occurred out with respiratory environments. DISCUSSION: These data raise concerns about pleural intervention for fluid occurring where lack of appropriate ultrasound use may have contributed in a variety of clinical areas. This should be highlighted at a national level by specialty groups and societies. We welcome an upcoming National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death study to help cement our understanding of factors underlying this ongoing risk of harm and to enable definitive action to be taken to reduce this risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.