Recurring concern
Delays in consultant review of patients
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 24 Sep 2013•Latest report 27 Feb 2026
What this concern includes
Includes reports identifying delayed, missed or insufficiently timely consultant review of patients, including failures to seek or arrange an early consultant review where consultant input is required.
Not included
- Excludes delays in non-consultant consultations, referrals or specialist services unless the report specifically concerns consultant review.
- Excludes failures involving only documentation, communication, continuity, staffing or on-call cover when delayed consultant review is not itself identified.
- Excludes concerns about the quality or appropriateness of consultant decisions where timely review was not a material issue.
- Reports
- 35
- Individual concerns
- 37
- Date range
- 2013–2026
- Stated actions
- 32
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
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.
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.
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of familiarity with guidance requiring consultant discussion of unexpected returns within 72 hours
This report raised 6 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
-
Action
Work with Information Technology to add a 72-hour reattendance alert requiring consultant advice before discharge.
Stated by George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust -
Action
Audit patients reattending within 72 hours for consultant referral before discharge and share the findings within UEC and at Trust-wide Audit Day.
Stated by George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Overseas-qualified doctors undergo Royal College accreditation, including assessment of familiarity with relevant guidance, on the same basis as UK-trained doctors.
Stated by George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Delays in medical consultant review of patients referred to medicine
This report raised 9 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to provide recent consultant orthopaedic review before admission for elective surgery
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of Consultant involvement after admission
This report raised 7 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Provide a Non-Medical Approved Clinician role with programmed senior medical support, supervision and education for ward care.
Stated by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Available consultant psychiatrist support was not accessed because clinicians considered it unnecessary at the time.
Stated by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of named or responsible consultant review before child discharge
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Complete weekly assurance audits of clinical records across acute areas, covering sepsis assessment and related discharge and communication safeguards.
Stated by Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Consultant handovers, case discussion and retrospective attendance-note review provide sufficient safeguards for children discharged without admission.
Stated by Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of mandated face-to-face consultant psychiatrist review after acute-unit discharge
This report raised 9 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Medical review decisions remain risk- and needs-led through multidisciplinary processes rather than being governed by a fixed post-discharge Consultant Psychiatrist review mandate.
Stated by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to escalate serious or rare blood-condition diagnoses for Haematology Consultant input
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
-
Action
Establish and publish an autoimmune haemolytic anaemia flow pathway covering investigations, treatment and referral to the haematology on-call consultant.
Stated by West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust -
Action
Include the autoimmune haemolytic anaemia flow pathway in the developing Heads Up book for junior clinicians.
Stated by West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
-
Concerns raised2
Lack of a clear system of regular orthogeriatric consultant reviews
Failure to escalate deterioration to a consultant
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Provide daily and twice-weekly Consultant in Care of the Elderly reviews, with escalation to senior medical staff for clinical concerns and cover arrangements for unavailable consultants.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The Trust concluded that regular Consultant reviews occurred and junior doctors escalated clinical concerns as required in Mrs Ross’ case.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to ensure timely consultant reviews
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of second consultant review on the paediatric ward
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Share a briefing paper with commissioners detailing staffing, equipment and ward redesign requirements for paediatric critical care.
Stated by Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
A second consultant ward round cannot be delivered immediately because it depends on establishing a Paediatric Critical Care Unit.
Stated by Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust
-
Position
Delivery of the proposed Paediatric Critical Care Unit and twice-daily ward rounds depends on commissioners supporting the plans and funding.
Stated by Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust
Data last updated 7 September 2026