Unsafe recognition and management of subarachnoid haemorrhage
First to latest report 26 Nov 2020 — 5 Dec 2025
Reports that mention this concern
3
Times this concern has been raised
3
Stated actions linked to this concern
8
What this concern includes
Includes failures of controls specifically dedicated to recognising, investigating, coordinating or treating suspected or confirmed subarachnoid haemorrhage, including acting on clinical information, recognising atypical presentations, imaging and assigning or coordinating responsible specialist care.
What is not included
Excludes generic failures to act on clinical information, review imaging or coordinate specialist care when they are not specifically tied to subarachnoid haemorrhage.
Excludes other intracranial, gastrointestinal, renal or traumatic haemorrhages unless the assertion explicitly concerns subarachnoid haemorrhage.
Excludes generic diagnostic, staffing, training, electronic-record or inter-service coordination deficiencies that are not dedicated to the subarachnoid-haemorrhage pathway.
Excludes broader emergency-department or acute-deterioration failures where subarachnoid haemorrhage is not the named hazard.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, 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.
George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust1
Recipient name withheld1
Royal College of Physicians1
Royal College of Radiologists1
Royal College of Surgeons of England1
Warwick Hospital1
Healthcare site1
Health professional body1
NHS trust1
Type not available1
Reports and published responses 3 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
Coventry
Concerns raised1
Complex and insufficiently streamlined processes for treating aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhages
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Royal College of Physicians
Royal College of Radiologists
Royal College of Surgeons of England
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Royal College of Radiologists
Develop and update professional guidance and standards supporting timely care and clarifying roles and responsibilities in complex multidisciplinary pathways.
Royal College of Surgeons of England
Develop a position statement with SBNS and BNVG recommending how clinical care for subarachnoid haemorrhage patients should be managed.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.5
Royal College of Physicians
The patient did not experience a delay associated with transfer because the treating hospital had a dedicated neurosurgical unit.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Royal College of Physicians
Neurosurgeons and linked multidisciplinary teams are best placed to manage subarachnoid haemorrhage patients and determine treatment.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Royal College of Radiologists
NHS providers, commissioners and national bodies are responsible for organising, resourcing and operationally delivering emergency and specialist services.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Royal College of Radiologists
The RCR cannot mandate service reconfiguration or staffing levels, limiting its ability to implement those changes directly.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Royal College of Surgeons of England
Local multidisciplinary teams may determine how SAH services are delivered, provided neurosurgical and interventional neuroradiology expertise is included.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Warwickshire
Concerns raised1
Lack of awareness of subarachnoid haemorrhage masquerading as migraine and possible neurological findings
This report raised 6 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Warwickshire
Concerns raised1
Failure to act on written instruction to treat as suspected subarachnoid haemorrhage unless excluded by CT scan
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.6
South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust
Teach junior doctors about subarachnoid haemorrhage and incorporate this case into teaching materials and the junior doctors’ handbook.
South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust
Require junior doctors to reflect on the case, review NICE headache guidance, and discuss learning with educational supervisors through documented appraisal processes.
South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust
Amend the ACP triage form and redesign the AEC MNP GP-referral form to capture GP concerns.
South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust
Review AEC processes to ensure doctors can access and see referral letters before assessing patients.
South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust
Develop and implement an acute headache assessment and management pathway incorporating the Ottawa subarachnoid haemorrhage decision tool.
South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust
Disseminate the revised Acute Headache Pathway across the Trust through the Patient Safety Newsletter and intranet.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.