First reported 23 Oct 2014•Latest report 28 May 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures in the haematology clinical-review and advice process, including insufficient capacity for comprehensive reviews, failure to respond to requests, delayed or unavailable specialist review, and related arrangements that prevent timely haematology input.
Not included
Excludes general healthcare or specialist staffing shortages where haematology clinical review or advice is not the affected function.
Excludes failures in anticoagulation, transfusion, oncology or other condition-specific care unless the assertion specifically concerns the haematology review and advice process.
Excludes failures occurring after adequate haematology advice or review has been provided, including unrelated treatment or follow-up deficiencies.
Excludes generic communication or referral failures that do not directly impair access to haematology clinical review or advice.
Reports
3
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
4
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2014–2026
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
9
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.
Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1
Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care System1
Department of Health and Social Care1
Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust1
NHS England1
NHS Essex Integrated Care Board1
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust1
NHS trust3
Executive non-departmental public body1
Health-system partnership1
Integrated care board1
Ministerial department1
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.
Essex
Concerns raised1
Failure to provide medical review or haematology referral for prolonged non-therapeutic INR
This report raised 12 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each 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.4
Action
Implement a high-risk anticoagulation pathway with senior review criteria, INR monitoring, escalation thresholds, documentation requirements and governance audits.
Stated by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 August 2026.
Action
Complete a review of the anticoagulation service escalation process for complex patients under hospital care.
Stated by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 August 2026.
Action
Introduce documented senior-clinician and, where appropriate, haematology review requirements, an updated operating procedure, staff communication and governance audits for complex anticoagulation cases.
Stated by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 August 2026.
Action
Set referral and escalation triggers for prolonged poor INR control, missed appointments or persistent instability, supported by documented rationale, referral logging, record audits and governance review.
Stated by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 August 2026.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust is best placed to address the concern about escalation because it concerns specific practitioners’ practice.
Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Birmingham and Solihull
Concerns raised1
Insufficient haematology department staffing and capacity for comprehensive reviews
Responses linked to these concerns
Each 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.5
Action
Increase transplant capacity by reallocating an existing consultant’s job plan to provide more transplant-dedicated time.
Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 May 2025.
Action
Extend the senior specialist registrar’s training for six months, focusing on myeloid disease and allogeneic transplantation while supporting transplant clinics under supervision.
Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 May 2025.
Action
Create and recruit an additional myeloid transplant consultant post.
Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 May 2025.
Action
Create a joint UHB–NHSBT consultant post covering transplant medicine, cellular therapies, laboratory oversight and cross-organisation communication.
Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 May 2025.
Action
Monitor recruitment to the new consultant posts and report progress through the Hospital Board.
Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 May 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Individual NHS trusts and other employers are responsible for ensuring sufficient staffing for safe care.
Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Regulation 18 already requires trusts to review staffing numbers and skills needed to provide safe care.
Stated by Department of Health and Social CareExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised2
Failure of the Haematology Department to remain contactable by attending doctors
Failure of Haematologists to respond to requests for advice and review
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures in the haematology clinical-review and advice process, including insufficient capacity for comprehensive reviews, failure to respond to requests, delayed or unavailable specialist review, and related arrangements that prevent timely haematology input.
