Recurring concern

Unreliable coordination of cancer diagnosis and treatment

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 11 Feb 2016•Latest report 4 Jul 2024

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in coordinating the end-to-end cancer diagnosis and treatment pathway, including communication between responsible teams, sequencing or concurrency of investigations, reporting, referral, treatment planning and progression to treatment where these directly delay or compromise cancer care.

Not included

  • Excludes generic communication failures with no cancer diagnosis or treatment context.
  • Excludes isolated failures in cancer screening, cancer-red-flag recognition or two-week-wait referral where pathway coordination is not the shared unsafe condition; those belong to narrower named concerns.
  • Excludes delays caused solely by a shortage of scanning, pathology or treatment capacity when no coordination failure is identified.
  • Excludes clinical treatment or diagnostic decisions made after the cancer pathway has been reliably coordinated.
Reports
3

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
3

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2016–2024

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
14

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.

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust1
Department of Health and Social Care1
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency1
the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust1
University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust1
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust1

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. East London

    AI-generated summary

    David John Morris · 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

    David John Morris, aged 78, developed oesophageal cancer after delays in diagnosis and treatment, later undergoing gastrostomy surgery. He developed a gastrostomy leak, peritonitis and septic shock, and died in hospital on 16 May 2022 after further surgery. The concerns included delayed recognition and treatment of the leak and sepsis, poor clinical records, deficiencies in the investigation, and ineffective controlled-drug management systems.

    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

    Poor organisation of cancer diagnosis and treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Mr Morris’s diagnosis and treatment for cancer was delayed due to poor organisation and communication at the Trust. ”

    Source location

    David John Morris · 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

    Continue working with NHS England and local systems to reduce cancer waiting times and support earlier-stage diagnosis.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the importance of organisations across the health system working together to ensure effective cancer diagnosis, and I regret that this did not occur in Mr Morris’ case. It is important to ensure that the issues you outlined in your report are not repeated. Thus, we will continue to work alongside NHSE and local systems to reduce waiting times and deliver on the NHS Long-Term Plan ambitions to diagnose 75% of cancers at stage 1 and 2 by 2028.”

    Source location

    2024-0360 - Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 July 2024

    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

    Require responsible consultant approval before removing or deferring any cancer patient from the Patient Tracker List.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Mr Morris’s treatment plan and diagnosis was delayed and complicated in part due to being downgraded in severity on the Patient Tracker List which led to a breakdown in communication between clinical pathways. With immediate effect, no patients that are currently on a Patient Tracker List for any cancer diagnosis can be removed or deferred without approval of the responsible consultant. This is to ensure that administrative processes have a clear oversight of a senior clinician who takes full responsibility for the treatment plan.”

    Source location

    2024-0360 - Response from Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 July 2024

    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

    Restructure cancer administration pathways to provide new clinical oversight and streamlined communication.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition, a restructure of the cancer administration pathways is underway by the Speciality Manager for cancer performance; under the oversight of the Chief Operating Officer. This restructure is proposed to finish by 30 September 2024, with its implementation expected to result in new clinical oversight and streamlined communication.”

    Source location

    2024-0360 - Response from Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 July 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

    Medical advice and guidance on medical practice or care quality fall outside the respondent’s remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The MHRA assesses the balance of risks and benefits of medical devices throughout their use in clinical practice through the collection of information and assessment of any potential risks, followed, when necessary, with communications and regulatory action to minimise those risks. The MHRA does not have a role in providing medical advice or guidance relating to medical practice or care quality and therefore cannot comment on those aspects of this case.”

    Source location

    2024-0360 - Response from MHRA
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 July 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 Trust will respond separately to the concerns about care and processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I understand that the Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Trust will also be responding separately to your concerns and that the London region of NHS England is”

    Source location

    2024-0360 - Response from DHSC
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 July 2024

    Open published response
  2. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

    AI-generated summary

    Peter Edward SMITH · 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

    Peter Edward SMITH died on 4 March 2019 after relapsing on 20 February 2019. The report identified significant delay in the diagnosis and treatment of his adenocarcinoma, with tests, reports, appointments and discussions taking place consecutively so that surgery was no longer possible by the scheduled date.

    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

    Delays in diagnosis and treatment caused by sequential rather than concurrent coordination of tests, reports, appointments and discussions

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There was significant delay in the diagnosis and treatment of Mr Smith’s adenocarcinoma which contributed to his death on the 4th March 2019. 2. Time was of the essence, but tests, reports, appointments and discussions took place consecutively to the extent that by the time a final date for surgery was fixed it was no longer possible. 3. Had tests been conducted expeditiously and concurrently with predictable tests organised in advance it is likely that the surgery would have been able to take place significantly earlier than it did. ”

    Source location

    Peter Edward SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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 the standard operating procedure for referring suspected or confirmed lung cancer patients for surgical resection.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust and the teams involved recognise the delays in this case and have reviewed their pathways and processes. From November 2019, the Trust has updated their Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which provides advice on the referral of patients for surgical resection of proven or suspected lung cancer to prevent delays. This covers the following areas:”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Streamline the lung cancer diagnostic pathway through direct-to-CT referral, urgent chest X-ray reporting, and coordinated diagnostic processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “From November 2019, the Trust has streamlined the diagnostic pathway (enclosed at Appendix 2) for patients being investigated for potential lung cancer which involved collaboration with Clinical Commissioning Group’s regarding ‘direct to CT’ pathways and to the urgent ‘hot-reporting’ of chest x-”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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 and ratify diagnostic bundles specifying appropriate investigations for patient groups and pre-surgical risk assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Improvement work has been undertaken and evaluated with regards to developing diagnostic ‘bundles’ of tests to streamline investigations and agree which investigations are appropriate for specific patient groups, recognising that each investigation involves a potential delay, but that it is important to ensure that a patient is risk assessed appropriately prior to listing for surgical intervention.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Flag concerning abnormal chest X-rays to the Lung Cancer Team daily.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Every chest x-ray with an abnormality which is concerning for a potential lung cancer is now flagged up to the Lung Cancer Team on a daily basis. Although, in the case of Mr Smith, his initial x-ray had been reported as normal as the changes were subtle.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Triage CT results daily after abnormal chest X-rays raise possible lung cancer, alerting the Lung Cancer Team and responsible consultant.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• There is daily triage of CT scan results performed following receipt of an abnormal chest x-ray where the potential for lung cancer has been raised by the reporting radiologist. It has been established that had this been the case for Mr Smith, this may have reduced the timescale between radiology reporting and receipt of that report by the requesting clinician by six days. This would also trigger the Lung Cancer Team and alert the patient’s Consultant.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Standardize pre-operative assessment to minimize clinically unnecessary tests and associated delays.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• The request of additional tests can result in further delays: the Trust’s new protocol has standardised the pre-operative assessment process to try and minimise clinically unnecessary tests, recognising that each additional test builds in a potential time delay.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Allow PET scans to be requested before multidisciplinary discussion, requiring discussion after the PET-CT result.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Patient’s cases do not need to be discussed at an MDT meeting in order to facilitate the requesting of a PET scan, but only following receipt of the PET CT result.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Increase surgical clinical capacity to prevent delays in clinic appointments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• There has been an increase in surgical clinical capacity, preventing delays for clinic appointments.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Maintain coordinated lung cancer working arrangements with UHNM, including weekly thoracic surgical outpatient clinics and multidisciplinary team attendance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust and UHNM continue to maintain close links and working closely together in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients. UHNM cardiothoracic surgeons attend SaTH weekly to operate surgical outpatient clinics and to attend weekly MDT meetings in person.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Continue quality improvement work towards compliance with the National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All improvements have also supported the Trust in quality improvement to work towards compliance with the National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway which is due to come into practice by April 2020.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from-Shrewsbury-and-Telford-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    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

    Agree a standard operating procedure for referrals for surgical resection of proven or suspected lung cancer.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regard to the delay in the diagnosis and treatment of Mr Smith’s adenocarcinoma SaTH has produced, in conjunction with and agreed by the UHNM visiting cardiothoracic surgeons, the attached Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] – “Referral for surgical resection of proven or suspected lung cancer”. SaTH has implemented the SOP and will be responding to you separately.”

    Source location

    2020-0022-Response-from.-UNMH
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    Open published response
  3. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Marion Rose HOWES · 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

    Marion Rose HOWES died before the inquest concluded on 3 February 2016; the circumstances are referred to in the Record of Inquest. The concerns included failures in discharge communication, coordination and continuity of care, two failed discharges, inadequate communication of a cancer diagnosis, and failure to recognise that she was dying, which was said to have resulted in an undignified and uncomfortable 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 timely patient notification of cancer-diagnosis and specialist appointments

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) At this Inquest I was told that hospital was not considered the best place to impart the difficult news of a cancer and that this is dealt with by a Outpatients appointment being sent for the patient to meet the surgeon and the specialist nurse. In this particular case the patient died and in fact never knew the date of the appointment allocated, but the appointment of the specialist nurse, when the diagnosis is made, would be helpful and timeous and enable the patient to understand and prepare for what is to come. It seems to me that it would be a very much kinder way to proceed and would also mean that the sensible patient would be preparing him or herself for the surgery which is likely to follow. ”

    Source location

    Marion Rose HOWES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026