Background Patients can play an important role in improving patient safety by becoming actively involved in their health care. However, there is a paucity of empirical data on the extent to which patients take on such a role. In order to encourage patient participation in patient safety we first need to assess the full range of factors that may be implicated in such involvement.

The role of the pathologist in the preoperative diagnosis of phyllodes tumours of the breast is critical to appropriate surgical planning. However, reliable differentiation of phyllodes tumour from cellular fibroadenoma remains difficult. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy allows correct surgical treatment, avoiding the pitfalls of reoperation because of inadequate excision, or surgical overtreatment. Specific clinical indices may arouse diagnostic suspicion but are unreliable for confirmation, as with current imaging modes. Fine needle aspiration cytology has a high false negative rate. Few studies have evaluated the role of core needle biopsy, but it may prove a useful adjunct. Both diagnostic and prognostic information may in future be gained from application of immunohistochemical and other techniques assessing the expression of proliferative markers including p53, Ki-67, and others.

We believe that thinking of patient involvement in safety relating to properties and characteristics of the behavior together with the barriers to involvement could aid the design, implementation, and evaluation of interventions aimed at encouraging patient participation. It will also enable a greater understanding and assessment of not only what interventions may be effective (at encouraging patient involvement) but when they might be effective (i.e., what stage of the care pathway) and why.

Background The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.