Recurring concern

Failure to ensure safe post-discharge arrangements for vulnerable patients and residents

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 26 Nov 2013•Latest report 14 Apr 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in discharge or return arrangements for vulnerable, challenging or clinically dependent patients and residents where responsible services do not reliably establish, coordinate or communicate the support and protective arrangements needed after discharge, including required advice from social services or comparable care functions.

Not included

  • Excludes routine discharge delays or unsuitable discharge timing where post-discharge safety arrangements are not the deficient condition.
  • Excludes failures confined to a named mental-health, hospital-to-care-home, prison-release or other specialised discharge pathway when that pathway provides the more specific supported boundary.
  • Excludes failures in care or treatment after safe discharge arrangements have been established.
  • Excludes generic communication, staffing or documentation deficiencies unless they directly leave a vulnerable person without safe post-discharge arrangements.
Reports
34

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
44

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
53

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department of Health and Social Care4
Kent County Council2
North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust2
Worcestershire County Council2
Aneurin Bevan University LHB1
Barts Health NHS Trust1
Care Quality Commission1
Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust1
Chesterfield Royal Hospital1
City of Doncaster Council1
Cornwall Council1
County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust1
Cumbria County Council1
Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1
Grasmere Surgery1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Cumbria

    AI-generated summary

    James Patrick · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    James Stewart, aged 52, died on 27 December 2024 after leaving hospital during alcohol withdrawal and placing a ligature around his neck at a nearby hotel, sustaining catastrophic injuries. The report describes concerns that he was discharged prematurely, without reassessment by the Psychiatric Liaison Team or intervention when safety concerns were raised, and that Flow Coordinators might not receive information about patient vulnerabilities when arranging discharge.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide Flow Coordinators with information about patient vulnerabilities when arranging discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) I heard evidence from a Flow Coordinator who was responsible for taking the practical steps to arrange a patient's discharge after the treating clinicians had determined that the patient was medically fit. I understand that the Flow Coordinator is to make the necessary logistical arrangements for discharge, not to decide whether discharge is appropriate. However, the evidence was that the Flow Coordinator would not necessarily be briefed on any particular vulnerabilities that a patient had. For instance, in this instance Mr Stewart had made repeated threats to harm himself, including on the railway, which the Flow Coordinator did not know of. She considered making arrangements for him to travel home by train, which might have been especially risky. Whilst these matters did not eventuate in this inquest, I consider that not giving Flow Coordinators information about patient vulnerability risks them making unsuitable arrangements. ”

    Source location

    James Patrick · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review the Band 4 Flow Coordinator role and associated discharge processes, including responsibilities, risk-information flow, escalation and multidisciplinary clinical leadership.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. Flow Coordinator Role and Discharge Processes”

    Source location

    Response from North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 April 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement clinical-risk information sharing during discharge coordination and multidisciplinary discharge processes, including updated documentation and mental-health referral prompts.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1 | Implement process for sharing clinical risk information during discharge coordination and ensure MDT-led discharge for all patients. This includes mental health services. | Collaborative Lead Nurse Emergency Care | 31/08/2026 | Update discharge documentation to include: - Mental health section. Has the patient had any involvement in mental health services during their admission or inpatient stay. - If patient has been involved in mental health services – consider a referral to PLT prior to discharge. | Emergency Care Collaborative Workforce Group”

    Source location

    Response from North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 29 April 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Contemporaneous staff accounts did not indicate that explicit hanging suicide intent was escalated immediately before discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For completeness, I would note that the Trust’s learning response completed in January 2025 was based on the contemporaneous evidence available at the time, including accounts from staff directly involved in Mr Stewart’s care. These accounts did not indicate that an explicit expression of intent to end his life by hanging had been escalated immediately prior to discharge. Notwithstanding this, I acknowledge your careful consideration of the evidence and accept the seriousness of your findings. The Trust has undertaken extensive reflection on the circumstances of Mr Stewart’s care, and is fully committed to ensuring that the learning identified is embedded into clinical practice and operational delivery.”

    Source location

    Response from North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 29 April 2026

    Open published response
  2. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Susan Elizabeth SAMSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Susan Elizabeth SAMSON died on 7 May 2025 after falling down the stairs at her home, following discharge from a rehabilitation placement. The principal concern was that patients may be discharged before they can consistently use stairs without assistance, potentially resulting in a death.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure patients can consistently complete a flight of stairs without assistance before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “The Occupational Therapist involved in the deceased's discharge on 1 May 2025 gave evidence that for someone to be assessed as safe to use the stairs on their own, it was not sufficient for them to have managed to complete a set of stairs without assistance on one occasion; it was necessary for the person to demonstrate that they could consistently complete the stairs without assistance. The Occupational Therapist stated that the two successful attempts in the Care Home seemed to be enough to achieve consistency and indicated that if similar circumstances arose today the patient would still be discharged home at the end of the six-week rehabilitation period. I found as a fact that prior to the deceased's discharge on 1 May 2025 the deceased had not demonstrated that she was able to consistently complete a flight of stairs without assistance. I am concerned by the evidence that if similar circumstances arose today the patient would still be discharged. I am concerned that there may be occasions in the future that patients will be discharged before they are able to consistently complete a flight of stairs and that, as a result, a death may occur. ”

    Source location

    Susan Elizabeth SAMSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Deliver SOAP note training to Community Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy and Assistant staff within six weeks, and remaining Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy staff within four months.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The documentation relating to the stair attempts undertaken prior to discharge from the intermediate care setting does not clearly confirm that the patient completed the stairs without assistance and lacks sufficient objective assessment and clinical analysis. The Trust requires the use of the recognised SOAP note structure (Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan) when recording assessments, which was completed, however the use of the term supervision should have been more clearly defined.”

    Source location

    Response from County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Repeating stair assessments is not always necessary where a patient previously completed one safely and has no additional risk factors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is not always necessary to repeat a stair assessment. The decision should be guided by the clinician’s professional judgement and the patient’s individual risk profile. If a patient has previously completed a stair assessment safely and no additional risk factors are present, repetition is unlikely to be required. However, for individuals with identified risk such as a history of falls, reduced strength or balance, or frailty, repeating the assessment can provide valuable reassurance by demonstrating consistency and safety over time.”

    Source location

    Response from County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response
  3. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    John Franklin · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    John Franklin, who lived alone and was at high risk of falls, suffered a fall after discharge home, followed by dehydration, reduced mobility, contractures and pressure ulcers. He deteriorated despite treatment and died on 16 October 2024; the inquest concluded that death was due to complications of recent falls contributed to by frailty syndrome. The principal concern was that he was discharged home before a careline/lifeline pendant was provided, although the records later indicated that one was installed.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide a careline/lifeline pendant before discharge home for a person at high risk of falls

    Wider context from the report

    “Mr Franklin lived alone and was assessed to be at high risk of falls. When he was discharged from Malvern Hospital on the 19 May 2024, he was discharged home before a careline/lifeline pendant was provided. At the inquest, the evidence of the manager of the Reablement team was that she did not know whether a careline had been installed at the time that Mr Franklin was found on the floor on the morning of the 28 May 2024. She informed the court that a Care Line had been requested for Mr Franklin on the 21 May 2024, and that on the 24 May 2024 during a physiotherapy assessment, Mr Franklin consented to a care line being ordered. The care notes reflected that a care line had been installed on the 22 May 2024. ”

    Source location

    John Franklin · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review the hospital discharge policy and procedures to ensure assistive technology needs and safe discharge decisions are explicit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To ensure any learning is taken, we have reviewed our policy and procedures for hospital discharge. We are confident that the approach of ensuring AT needs are considered and only safe discharges are agreed is explicit in our process.”

    Source location

    2026-0110 - Response from Worcestershire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Consider assistive technology needs and associated risks before every hospital discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Prior to hospital discharges we will always consider if there is a need for Assistive Technology (AT) to be in place for a safe discharge. There are occasions where AT is identified as beneficial but not essential and would not be deemed as necessary for safe hospital discharge, for instance where a person has other support means or is safe between calls and has the ability to understand the need to wait between calls and will not mobilise if there is a high risk of falls. Prior to hospital discharge, a triage process is undertaken to identify presenting needs and any risks, which would consider if AT is required to meet essential needs prior to discharge.”

    Source location

    2026-0110 - Response from Worcestershire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Remind staff to identify risks requiring mitigation through assistive technology before discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Staff have been reminded of the need to consider any risks when considering the use of AT and identifying if any of those risks must be mitigated through AT being in situ prior to discharge. Where this is deemed necessary for a safe discharge this will be shared with our acute colleagues and the person/representative and will be arranged in advance.”

    Source location

    2026-0110 - Response from Worcestershire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Share necessary assistive technology requirements with acute colleagues and the person or representative, and arrange provision before discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Staff have been reminded of the need to consider any risks when considering the use of AT and identifying if any of those risks must be mitigated through AT being in situ prior to discharge. Where this is deemed necessary for a safe discharge this will be shared with our acute colleagues and the person/representative and will be arranged in advance.”

    Source location

    2026-0110 - Response from Worcestershire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The discharge triage process sufficiently identifies when assistive technology is essential for safe discharge, so it need not always be provided beforehand.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Prior to hospital discharges we will always consider if there is a need for Assistive Technology (AT) to be in place for a safe discharge. There are occasions where AT is identified as beneficial but not essential and would not be deemed as necessary for safe hospital discharge, for instance where a person has other support means or is safe between calls and has the ability to understand the need to wait between calls and will not mobilise if there is a high risk of falls. Prior to hospital discharge, a triage process is undertaken to identify presenting needs and any risks, which would consider if AT is required to meet essential needs prior to discharge.”

    Source location

    2026-0110 - Response from Worcestershire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Always providing assistive technology before discharge is not feasible because it would significantly delay discharges where it is not essential.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We would not be able to commit to AT always being in place prior to discharge as you can appreciate this would delay a significant number of discharges when the need has not been deemed essential.”

    Source location

    2026-0110 - Response from Worcestershire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response
  4. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    John Franklin · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    John Franklin, who was frail and at high risk of falls after hip surgery and prolonged hospitalisation, was found on the floor at home after a long lie and subsequently developed pressure ulcers and a deteriorating hip wound. He died on 16 October 2024; the inquest concluded that death was due to complications of recent falls contributed to by frailty syndrome. A substantive concern was that he was discharged home before a careline/lifeline pendant was provided, with uncertainty about whether it had been installed when he was found on the floor.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide a careline/lifeline pendant before discharge home for a person at high risk of falls

    Wider context from the report

    “Mr Franklin lived alone and was assessed to be at high risk of falls. When he was discharged from Malvern Hospital on the 19 May 2024, he was discharged home before a careline/lifeline pendant was provided. At the inquest, the evidence of the manager of the Reablement team was that she did not know whether a careline had been installed at the time that Mr Franklin was found on the floor on the morning of the 28 May 2024. She informed the court that a Care Line had been requested for Mr Franklin on the 21 May 2024, and that on the 24 May 2024 during a physiotherapy assessment, Mr Franklin consented to a care line being ordered. The care notes reflected that a care line had been installed on the 22 May 2024. ”

    Source location

    John Franklin · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

    AI-generated summary

    Samuel Joseph BROOKES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Samuel Joseph Brookes was discharged home after a hospital admission following a fall and long lie, but his required care was not rearranged. He was immobile, lived alone, and was left unattended for two weeks without access to his pendant alarm or mobile phone; he was then found unresponsive and deceased. The principal concerns were the failure to arrange and document his care, the lack of a process requiring confirmation of his safe return, and his inability to raise an alarm or call for help.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to rearrange required care before arranging transportation home

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The hospital arranged for Mr Brookes transportation home without rearranging the required care as set out in paragraph 4 above. ”

    Source location

    Samuel Joseph BROOKES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review and update the discharge-planning SOP, including care-agency confirmation, failed-discharge escalation and documentation requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Recommendation / Area for Improvement Identified: Discharge team to review and up-date the discharge planning Standard operating procedure (SOP) (previously Complex Discharge Operational Policy) to specific requirements of safe discharge.”

    Source location

    Response from The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 10 · response
    Published 23 April 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Train discharge-team staff on accurate clinical-record documentation and required care-agency contact details.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Recommendation / Area for Improvement Identified: Improve discharge team documentation in clinical record to evidence safe discharge”

    Source location

    Response from The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 11 · response
    Published 23 April 2025

    Open published response
  6. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Naomi SULEYMAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Naomi Suleyman developed and later died from pneumonia and complications of an unstageable sacral pressure sore after discharge from hospital, during a period when she was deconditioned and bedbound while her long-term needs were assessed. Concerns included inaccurate discharge information, missed welfare and therapy visits, an incorrect district nursing referral, poor communication between services, and missed opportunities to recognise and address that her discharge was unsafe.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to complete accurate discharge passports containing patients’ clinical, therapy, equipment and home-environment needs

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The ‘discharge passport’ completed by the UHL in-patient team was inaccurate, failing to record Ms Suleyman’s vulnerability to pressure ulcers, the need for therapies input from day 1, the equipment she required and that her home environment had not been optimised to meet her needs both in terms of equipment and layout. Whilst I heard that scrutiny of the discharge passport had improved at ward level, deficient discharge passports were still filtering through to the D2A team. ”

    Source location

    Naomi SULEYMAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Strengthen multidisciplinary discharge-passport completion, checking, approval, electronic-record updating and daily validation before discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Each member of the ward-based team, who is involved in the patient care, now provides input into the centrally located (and saved) discharge passports.”

    Source location

    Response from Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and Lewisham Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 January 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop standards, role definitions, guidance and staff teaching for prescribing pressure-care equipment and hospital beds.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• A multidisciplinary task and finish group has commenced work to outline standards of practice, and to define roles and responsibilities relating to prescription of pressure care equipment and hospital beds. The project will be undertaken using Quality improvement methodology and will produce guidance materials and teaching for staff by end of April 2025.”

    Source location

    Response from Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and Lewisham Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 January 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Progress the Occupational Therapy Policy through Trust governance approval.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• An Occupational Therapy Policy has been developed which outlines roles, responsibilities and processes relating to therapy practice for environmental assessments and equipment provision. This is currently being agreed through the Trusts governance procedures.”

    Source location

    Response from Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and Lewisham Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 January 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Perform additional electronic-record checks for last-minute changes in condition or discharge support needs under an embedded discharge protocol.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• The discharge team now perform additional checks on the patient electronic care record to ensure there have been no last-minute changes in the patient's condition or discharge support needs. This is underpinned by a new protocol which has been shared with the team and operationally embedded into working practices.”

    Source location

    Response from Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and Lewisham Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 January 2025

    Open published response
  7. South Yorkshire (Eastern)

    AI-generated summary

    Jean MULLEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Jean Mullen, an 87-year-old woman, was found collapsed and unresponsive at the bottom of the stairs at home after her pendant alarm was triggered on 22 June 2024; the inquest concluded that her death was accidental, involving a fall from height, fracture of the neck and subdural haemorrhage. Concerns included the failure to provide a recommended grab rail, failure to escalate a fall in the shower or reassess her mobility and equipment needs, and incomplete recording of stair-related risks.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide recommended safety equipment in the home

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest I heard evidence regarding communications between various departments of Adult Social Care and Home First and in particular STEPS. There had been an assessment by the therapist at Doncaster Royal Infirmary regarding Mrs Mullen returning to a safe home environment and what support and equipment would be required to allow that to take place. This included an assessment in the home with social workers present. A care package was provided by STEPS and it quickly became apparent that long term care and support would be required in the home and thus an application was completed on the 12th April. Mrs Mullen's family referred to them being informed that a grab rail would be required at the top of the stairs near the bathroom to help Mrs Mullen navigate to the bathroom thus reducing the risk of falls. This was not provided. A fall occurred when Mrs Mullen was in the shower but the carers failed to escalate this and made no referrals for any further assessment to take place in relation to Mrs Mullen's mobility and ability to continue living safely at her home address. Further this was a missed opportunity to assess whether any other aids or equipment were needed to support her. Had this taken place it is likely that the absence of the grab rail would have been identified. This was a further missed opportunity. Finally, the care and support placement referred to in the second exhibit to ████████'s report made no reference to the issue of stairs and the risk of falling that they presented. ”

    Source location

    Jean MULLEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Follow up delays in providing recommended aids and equipment for service users.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(2) Following up on recommendations for aids and equipment required to ensure a safe home environment for elderly persons such as Mrs Mullen: where a recommendation has been made for aids and equipment, this will be ordered by the professional making the recommendation. The Council will always follow up any delay in provision and assist in any way possible.”

    Source location

    Response from Doncaster Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 February 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Relevant professionals, rather than social care staff, must assess risks and recommend or order aids and equipment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “➢ It should be noted that carers and social care staff are not qualified to diagnose medical conditions or to make recommendations for aids and equipment. Their role is to raise any perceived concerns and to direct the person in question to the relevant professional for advice, usually an occupational therapist, physiotherapist, or District Nurse. All staff are aware of this process and do not require permission to take such steps.”

    Source location

    Response from Doncaster Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 February 2025

    Open published response
  8. Cheshire

    AI-generated summary

    Charles Henry DANIELS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Charles Henry Daniels was admitted to Stepping Hill Hospital in January 2024 after a fall and was later discharged home in March despite being described as clearly unwell. He returned to hospital with an acute on chronic subdural bleed and died on 21 March 2024. Concerns included inadequate nursing record-keeping, failure to alert a doctor to his deterioration before discharge, and the distress caused by his condition and discharge arrangements at home.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to establish whether care at home could be safely provided

    Wider context from the report

    “3) He arrived home by ambulance to his family in physically poor condition and clearly very unwell, on a stretcher in a hospital gown and incontinent, causing considerable distress to the family, particularly after a nurse, the paramedics and his carer questioned how they would cope with his care at home. ”

    Source location

    Charles Henry DANIELS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  9. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Margaret Ann PILGRIM · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Margaret Ann Pilgrim died at Princess Alexandra Hospital on 29 June 2023 from congestive cardiac failure and bronchopneumonia, against a background of frailty, after an unwitnessed fall at home caused a fractured clavicle. The fracture was reported on an X-ray during her hospital admission but was not noted on her discharge summary. Concerns included the absence of treatment, pain relief, care-package consideration and fracture-clinic follow-up, and the failure to inform the patient, her family or GP about the fracture.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide pain relief and consider a care package at discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “Mrs Pilgrim’s collapse at home was multifactorial due to natural causes however, she sustained a fractured clavicle that was reported on her X-Ray during her admission to hospital. This was not noted, and Mrs Pilgrim was discharged. (1) The Trust did not treat the patient for the fracture who was discharged with no pain relief or consideration of care package (2) The Discharge Summary omitted to inform the patient, her family or her GP of the fracture and no follow-up in the fracture clinic was booked (3) The fracture was only confirmed when the GP raised the concerns of the family with the Trust and the GP arranged analgesia, social care contact and follow-up for the fracture clinic. ”

    Source location

    Margaret Ann PILGRIM · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    No analgesia was considered necessary because neither the patient nor her daughter requested it at discharge and shoulder pain was not subsequently reported.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- Aside from when the patient was initially admitted there was no reference to the patient complaining of pain in her shoulder by either the medical team or the therapists who”

    Source location

    Response from Princess Alexandra Hospital
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 June 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A care package was not considered necessary because the assessment found that the patient did not meet the relevant threshold.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- The patient was advised to stay in the ED overnight in order to be seen by the REACT (Rapid Emergency Assessment Care Team) prior to her discharge so that she could be assessed for a potential package of care. Their assessment was that at the time she did not meet the threshold for this however some additional equipment was provided and ordered for her.”

    Source location

    Response from Princess Alexandra Hospital
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 June 2024

    Open published response
  10. Cumbria

    AI-generated summary

    Karen THOMASON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Karen Thomason, aged 52, collapsed at home on 31 October 2023, was discharged from hospital without Cumbria Housing staff being notified, and was found unresponsive at home the following day. Her death was confirmed on 1 November 2023 after she had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol. The concerns included errors in safeguarding documentation, failures to notify housing staff about discharge, and the risk of conflating capacity with an absence of vulnerability or safeguarding concerns.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to notify support services of vulnerable patients' discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) There is evidence that Cumbria Housing staff had asked to be notified of the discharge of a vulnerable patient so that they could provide support to her but that they received no communications on several occasions. I am concerned that this may mean that other patients are discharged without appropriate support being alerted to their needs. ”

    Source location

    Karen THOMASON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Update Symphony’s discharge screen to record discharge discussions and identify notifications or vulnerable-adult support needed before patients go home.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “RECOMMENDATION 2: Update Symphony to include discharge discussions for all patients. Include an ask “is there anything we can do or anyone we can notify before you go home?” Explore the “discharge screen” options on symphony to include a vulnerable adult question set.”

    Source location

    Response from North Cumbria Integrated Care
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 May 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Emergency Department was not informed of any request or requirement to notify the Housing Officer about discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Unfortunately, the ED Team were not made aware at any stage during Ms Thomason’s ED attendance, of any ask or requirement to notify the Housing Officer of Ms Thomason discharge or that the Housing officer had any concerns, either by the Housing Officer themselves, the Ambulance Service, or Ms Thomason. This was not conveyed verbally nor was it documented in the Ambulance records that were shared with ED on Ms Thomason’s arrival into the department.”

    Source location

    Response from North Cumbria Integrated Care
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 May 2024

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026