Recurring concern

Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and families

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 7 Jan 2014•Latest report 1 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in provider-to-family or family-to-provider communication where the information concerns patient safety, clinical risks, care plans, deterioration, leave arrangements, incidents, complaints or other matters directly relevant to safe care.

Not included

  • Excludes communication failures solely between professionals, services or departments when families are not a relevant party.
  • Excludes generic failures of documentation, staffing, training or policy compliance unless they directly constitute or prevent communication of safety-critical information to or from families.
  • Excludes routine information provision or dissatisfaction that is not tied to a meaningful public-safety concern.
  • Excludes communication with patients, students, prisoners or other beneficiaries where families are not materially involved.
Reports
70

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
74

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
94

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 Care12
NHS England8
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust4
Care Quality Commission3
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board3
Association of Ambulance Chief Executives2
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust2
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust2
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust2
Recipient name withheld2
Somerset NHS Foundation Trust2
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust2
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust2
Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust2
the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust2

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. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Stanislaw Wieslaw ZIELINSKI · 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

    Stanislaw Wieslaw Zielinski’s mental health deteriorated after he reported anxiety and insomnia, with care provided through telephone GP appointments and delays in mental health support. On 20 October 2020, he fell from an upstairs window and sustained multiple fractures and a subdural haematoma; he later died from a cardiac arrest due to a pulmonary embolism following hospitalisation and surgery. The concerns included difficulties communicating his deteriorating condition through telephone consultations and delays in receiving mental health support during the Covid-19 period.

    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 of GP consultation arrangements to support effective communication about deteriorating health

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Pre Covid Mr Zielinski would have been seen face to face rather than through a series of telephone consultations. The inquest heard that he and his family struggled to communicate with the GP to explain his deteriorating health position as a result of how his GP practice was delivering health care. The inquest heard evidence that as a consequence his deteriorating picture was not fully understood by his GP and he was additional anxious as a result of an inability to express his concerns in person. ”

    Source location

    Stanislaw Wieslaw ZIELINSKI · 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 patient experience feedback monthly to identify poor primary-care experiences and access inequalities.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Work is also ongoing to understand negative patient experiences of primary care so that we can mitigate and reduce similar incidents going forward by sharing the learning across all general practices within Tameside and Glossop. This work involves reviewing appointment data on a”

    Source location

    2021-0277-Response-from-Tameside-Metropolitan-Borough-Tameside-and-Glossop-CCG_Published.pdf
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    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

    Discuss negative patient feedback with relevant practices to support learning and improvement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “monthly basis in conjunction with any feedback from patients highlighting poor experiences. We then have conversations with practices regarding those poor experiences to support learning and improvement across all general practice within Tameside and Glossop. As such we encourage all patients to share their experiences – positive as well as negative – to reduce any inequality of access.”

    Source location

    2021-0277-Response-from-Tameside-Metropolitan-Borough-Tameside-and-Glossop-CCG_Published.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    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

    Introduce six-monthly patient surveys at individual practices from October 2021 to assess primary-care access and delivery.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As part of the planned update to Locally Commissioned Services, delivered by general practice, and to further support practice reflection on whether each individual practice has the appropriate blend of face to face and telephone consultations for their individual patient lists, from 1 October 2021, practices will survey their patients and clinicians every six months to understand how both parties experience delivering primary care during the ongoing and evolving pandemic. Tameside and Glossop CCG has been working to improve patient experience and access throughout the pandemic and will implement an action plan as part of this work that will also respond to the concerns raised by this Prevention of Future Deaths letter. Due to the nature of the available data this will be a rolling, ongoing action plan involving continual review of data and experiences.”

    Source location

    2021-0277-Response-from-Tameside-Metropolitan-Borough-Tameside-and-Glossop-CCG_Published.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    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

    Conduct an individual practice clinician survey in October 2021 to assess primary-care delivery during the pandemic.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As part of the planned update to Locally Commissioned Services, delivered by general practice, and to further support practice reflection on whether each individual practice has the appropriate blend of face to face and telephone consultations for their individual patient lists, from 1 October 2021, practices will survey their patients and clinicians every six months to understand how both parties experience delivering primary care during the ongoing and evolving pandemic. Tameside and Glossop CCG has been working to improve patient experience and access throughout the pandemic and will implement an action plan as part of this work that will also respond to the concerns raised by this Prevention of Future Deaths letter. Due to the nature of the available data this will be a rolling, ongoing action plan involving continual review of data and experiences.”

    Source location

    2021-0277-Response-from-Tameside-Metropolitan-Borough-Tameside-and-Glossop-CCG_Published.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    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

    National general practice guidance required remote triage and face-to-face appointments where clinically appropriate, addressing concerns about remote-only care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic general practice has been delivering health care services according to the national General Practice in the Context of Coronavirus Standard Operating Procedure that has been regularly updated. This national guidance was in force at the time of Mr Zielinski’s death. The aim of this Standard Operating Procedure was to ensure general practice was able to provide health care to patients in a safe environment, limiting the opportunity of Covid-19 infections in staff and patients while reducing the number of absences either by infections or self-isolation.”

    Source location

    2021-0277-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement_Published.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    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 CCG cannot determine how GP consultations are undertaken because it lacks legal powers and is not party to the nationally negotiated contract.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Nonetheless, whilst the CCG seeks to raise and maintain high standards it has no legal powers to determine how such consultations are undertaken. The contract with GPs – which is negotiated nationally and which the CCG isn’t actually a party to – doesn’t allow for specifying how consultations are delivered. At best the CCG can share data, share best practice and share any negative feedback with practices to understand why it has been received and encouraging changes that may want to consider to improve patient care and/or lived experience.”

    Source location

    2021-0277-Response-from-Tameside-Metropolitan-Borough-Tameside-and-Glossop-CCG_Published.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    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

    Existing guidance, procedures and resources are considered sufficient to support safe remote general practice consultations alongside face-to-face appointments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Throughout the pandemic, NHS England and NHS Improvement (NHSEI) provided guidance to general practice and continually updated standard operating procedures to ensure that changing services could operate safely. NHSEI set out clear expectations that general practices offer face to face appointments alongside remote appointments (telephone and online), and that clinical appropriateness and patient preference should be taken into account to determine the most appropriate consultation method. NHSEI has also supported general practices in how best to”

    Source location

    2021-0277-Response-from-Department-of-Health-Social-Care_Published.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    Open published response
  2. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Norma Rushworth · 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

    Norma Rushworth underwent surgery for diverticulitis and was later readmitted for emergency surgery after developing an abdominal dehiscence associated with an unidentified wound infection. She deteriorated after developing a chest infection and suffering a cardiac arrest, and died at Tameside General Hospital on 10 October 2020. Concerns included limited support and monitoring after discharge, unclear communication with community health professionals and family, and delayed recognition of her deterioration in the community, with pandemic restrictions contributing to communication difficulties.

    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 clearly convey community management advice and risks to community health professionals and families

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The inquest heard that following her discharge back into the community after surgery support and monitoring was limited notwithstanding how vulnerable she was; the complexity of her surgery and the risk she presented. Advice re management of a patient such as her in the community and risks and management of them was not conveyed clearly to community health professionals and to her family. Covid restrictions meant that communication had been difficult, and the written documentation did not cover the challenges this caused. Her deteriorating health in the community was not as a result recognised at an early stage. ”

    Source location

    Norma Rushworth · 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

    Communicate appropriate advice and guidance to relevant providers to increase staff awareness of available materials.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Actions taken or being taken to prevent reoccurrence across Greater Manchester.”

    Source location

    Response from Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    Open published response
  3. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    Eva Hayden · 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

    Eva Hayden, aged four, developed neutropenia following an illness and later became seriously unwell with fever-like symptoms. She collapsed on 10 January 2020 and died in the emergency department on 11 January 2020; the inquest found sepsis and bone marrow hypoplasia. Concerns included missed follow-up of her neutropenia, inadequate communication between hospitals, and insufficient communication with her parents about infection 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 communicate treatment plans and condition-related risks to patients and confirm their understanding

    Wider context from the report

    “a) When investigating, diagnosing or treating a patient’s presentation it seems reasonable that there should be good communication between clinician and patient with regard to the treatment plan. Understanding of the patient should be confirmed with regard to any precautions or risks arising from the condition. In this matter, Eva’s parents had no knowledge of the pancytopenia or neutropenia under investigation and the risks of infection for Eva – such that this was not explained to the staff in the Emergency department at Alder Hey on 8th January 2020. Clinical practice should have prevented this eventuality. ”

    Source location

    Eva Hayden · 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

    Re-emphasise communication with families and documentation of discussions through clinical-team meetings and regular communications, including providing relevant letters.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2. The importance of ensuring clear communication with parents and/or children about conditions that are being investigated and the documentation of these conversations in the case note or electronic system has been re-emphasised to all clinical teams through staff meetings and regular communications. We provide copies of discharge letters and outpatient department”

    Source location

    2021-0147-Response-from-Southport-and-Ormskirk-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 May 2021

    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

    Audit communication documentation and the quality of recorded clinical information through a routine audit cycle.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “clinic letters to parents. This will be followed up through a routine cycle of audits which will commence in July 2021 to ensure adherence to this directive and additionally to assess the quality of clinical information that is being recorded. We are working closely with Alder Hey team to ensure that families transferred from Alder Hey to Ormskirk for ongoing investigations have an understanding of the reasons and plans.”

    Source location

    2021-0147-Response-from-Southport-and-Ormskirk-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 May 2021

    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 standardised communication and referral processes with Alder Hey and the wider paediatric network, particularly for shared-care arrangements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “clinic letters to parents. This will be followed up through a routine cycle of audits which will commence in July 2021 to ensure adherence to this directive and additionally to assess the quality of clinical information that is being recorded. We are working closely with Alder Hey team to ensure that families transferred from Alder Hey to Ormskirk for ongoing investigations have an understanding of the reasons and plans.”

    Source location

    2021-0147-Response-from-Southport-and-Ormskirk-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 May 2021

    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

    Amend paediatric staff induction to cover communication with families, communication with other organisations, and responses when children are not brought to appointments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “10. The circumstances and details of this case have been widely shared. In addition, we are amending the local induction for staff in paediatrics to ensure that staff are provided with important information about the requirements of:”

    Source location

    2021-0147-Response-from-Southport-and-Ormskirk-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 May 2021

    Open published response
  4. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Frederick Joseph Terry · 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

    Baby Frederick Joseph Terry was delivered by caesarean section after a failed forceps attempt on 16 November 2019, and death was confirmed after 40 minutes of resuscitation attempts. The stated cause of death was hypovolaemic shock due to skull fracture, scalp laceration and haemorrhage arising from birth trauma. Concerns included risk assessment and forceps delivery, excessive force and traction, staff training and levels, communication, record keeping, resuscitation equipment and procedures, and neonatal unit support.

    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

    Deficiencies in training and procedures for communication with the family

    Wider context from the report

    “Training and procedures in respect of how communications with the family should be carried out. This should cover the duty of candour. ”

    Source location

    Frederick Joseph Terry · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. Gwent

    AI-generated summary

    Alyn Rees · 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

    Alyn Rees became acutely unwell on 3 December 2019, experienced breathing difficulties, deteriorated into cardiac arrest, and died after paramedics were unable to revive him. Concerns were raised about the approximately two-hour wait for an emergency ambulance, the lack of advice about the expected arrival time, the absence of an indicated response time for an Amber 1 call, and delays transferring patients into hospital care that prevented ambulances from being released.

    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 advise callers of the expected emergency ambulance arrival time

    Wider context from the report

    “However, the family raised concerns, with which I agreed, that 2 hours is a long time to wait for an emergency ambulance. At no time were the family advised of the expected time of arrival and potentially, if they had been aware of this, they may have contacted earlier the local GP. The report did not indicate what the expected response time for an Amber 1 call should be. I was advised that on this occasion there were significant delays (up to 3 hours) transferring patients into the care of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board Hospitals. This is also of significant concern as it prevented emergency ambulances being released. ”

    Source location

    Alyn Rees · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Shanté Andrée Marie TURAY-THOMAS · 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

    Shanté Andrée Marie Turay-Thomas ate hazelnuts on 18 September 2018 and died soon afterwards from acute anaphylaxis. The report identifies concerns about inadequate allergy care, advice and training concerning adrenaline auto-injectors, prescribing and clinical communication, and errors in the NHS 111 response and ambulance categorisation.

    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 explain the need for sequential administration of two adrenaline auto injectors in acute anaphylaxis

    Wider context from the report

    “2. Shanté’s GPs knew that she should carry two adrenaline auto injector (AAI) pens at all times, and they may have mentioned this to her, but they failed to record this and they did not emphasise it to her. They failed to emphasise to Shanté and her family that the reason for carrying two pens is primarily because in the event of severe acute anaphylaxis, the very strong likelihood is that both pens will need to be administered, one five minutes after the other, to keep the patient alive until the arrival of an emergency ambulance. The GPs did not explore with Shanté the reason for her erratic requests for a pen. They did not explore with her where she kept her pens. They did not test her understanding of medical advice. ”

    Source location

    Shanté Andrée Marie TURAY-THOMAS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · 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

    Amend and release the Distance Learning Pack with stronger anaphylaxis guidance, second-dose adrenaline advice and accurate images of adrenaline autoinjectors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS Digital welcomed the evidence given by the expert witness, Professor Fox, at the inquest and immediately recognised that the distance learning pack could be improved, assuring the Coroner (in evidence and in the supplementary second witness statement dated 20th December 2019) that a review would be undertaken, in consultation with Professor Fox, to address the points raised during his evidence.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-NHS-Digital_Redacted-1.pdf
    Page 4 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Amend NHS Pathways guidance so a second adrenaline autoinjector is advised after five minutes without improvement, through Release 20.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS Pathways has always prompted call handlers to give instructions in respect of a second administration of AAI if there is no improvement, as NHS Digital stated in the PFD submissions, dated 17 January 2020. This is NHS Pathways content and is not affected by the system into which NHS Pathways is embedded (e.g. Adastra in this case).”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-NHS-Digital_Redacted-1.pdf
    Page 5 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Disseminate prescribing, dosing, device-change and training guidance for adrenaline auto-injectors through safety bulletins, newsletters, intranet updates, scriptswitch messages and practice events.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. The narrative verdict was discussed at the NCL Medication Safety Officer (MSO) Local Network on 17th January 2020. The network agreed that a Medicines Safety Bulletin on Adrenaline Auto Injectors (AAIs) would be distributed to GPs and other primary care healthcare professionals. The NCL Medicines Safety Bulletin on Adrenaline Auto Injectors (AAI) dated 24th January 2020 is attached as appendix 1. The bulletin was approved virtually by one NCL Medication Safety Officer (MSO) Local Network following the meeting on 17th January 2020 and distributed to Enfield GP practices on 30th January 2020.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-Enfield-CCG.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Follow up practices through meetings and training, and collate records confirming patient device training and dosage reviews.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “CCG pharmacists to check what action they have taken regarding the NCL Medicines Safety Bulletin on Adrenaline Auto Injectors (AAI) have contacted all GP practices. This is being followed up with individual practice meetings, training meetings for GPs, training sessions for Primary Care Network pharmacists, and by CCG pharmacists working in practices. A record is in the process of being collated to capture actions by individual practices to ensure all patients regularly receive appropriate training in the use of their device and dosages have been reviewed. This process is due to complete by 30th April 2020.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-Enfield-CCG.pdf
    Page 4 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Process AAI prescriptions as acute prescriptions and provide device-specific safety instructions covering appropriate dosing, carrying two pens and emergency action.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2. All prescriptions for AAIs are now dealt with as acute prescriptions, as opposed to repeat prescriptions. This ensures that each prescription is scrutinised in detail to ensure that the type of pen and dose of adrenaline is appropriate for the patient. On the face of any AAI prescription, it is expressly stated for the avoidance of any doubt that a patient should carry two AAI pens on their person at all times and ensure that they are familiar with the use of the pen. There is also some safety netting advice in the event of an emergency. We have enclosed a sample prescription to illustrate this change. In addition, each prescription is accompanied by an AAI brand specific letter to the patient providing the most important details about the AAI pens to enable a patient to use it safely and effectively. We have also enclosed a copy of a standard letter in this regard.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-Radcliffes-Le-Brasseur_Redacted.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Train clinical staff on the three common AAI devices and maintain sample pens for patient demonstrations and training.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. The Practice has taken significant steps to ensure that it is up to date with anaphylaxis management and the use of AAI pens. It arranged in-house training for all clinical staff on 9 December 2019, which was delivered by a Nurse, ████████. This training included demonstrations as to how to use the three most common AAI pens, namely Emerade, JEXT and EpiPen, advice as to the different dosages available, instructions and demonstrations as to the different methods of administration for each brand. This was all based on the respective brands’ advice/instruction on their own explanatory posters and the demonstrations were done by Nurse ████████. She has since confirmed that she has also seen a few patients who have attended the Practice to obtain some training on the use of their AAI.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-Radcliffes-Le-Brasseur_Redacted.pdf
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Deliver enhanced anaphylaxis content within mandatory basic life-support training, including symptom recognition, carrying two pens and device-specific administration.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. In addition to the in-house training, mandatory basic life support training was held at the Practice on 27 February 2020. This was delivered by an external provider, Mr ████████ of ████████ and Associates Healthcare Training and Education. The basic life support training always includes a segment on anaphylaxis management. However, the Practice contacted the training provider prior to the course in order to emphasise that a more extensive section was required on anaphylaxis management. We enclose a copy of the e-mail in this regard. The basic life support training lasted two and a half hours in duration. It included a 40 minute section on anaphylaxis management which encompassed recognising symptoms, the imperative of carrying two pens at all times and the different administration of the three types of pens available.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-Radcliffes-Le-Brasseur_Redacted.pdf
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Recruit an in-house pharmacist to provide current AAI guidance and patient training during prescribing and dispensing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “8. The Practice recruited an in-house pharmacist who commenced work in December 2020. This appointment will prove conducive in ensuring that both patients and clinicians have up to date information in relation to AAI awareness. The pharmacist is also on hand to provide training to any patients in relation to the correct use of an AAI. There is accordingly now two layers of protection in that guidance is offered to a patient when prescribing the AAI as well as when dispensing it.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-Radcliffes-Le-Brasseur_Redacted.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Appoint a Practice Anaphylaxis Champion to oversee staff awareness, training, prescribing surveillance, protocol adherence and patient reviews.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “9. The Practice has undertaken a rigorous review of all patients that have been prescribed AAI pens so as to ensure that the correct dose and pen is being prescribed. The Practice has nominated one of the Pharmacists to act as the ‘Practice Anaphylaxis Champion.’ This role will include ensuring staff awareness, training and regular surveillance of appropriate prescribing practices and adherence to practice protocols. The Pharmacist will also contact all patients prescribed AAIs to undertake regular reviews of their condition, treatment and training.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-Radcliffes-Le-Brasseur_Redacted.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Amend the ScriptSwitch message with AAI availability, prescribing, dose-checking, counselling, training and allergy-action-plan requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “11. The Practice has shared learning with the CCG medicine management team and the message on scriptswitch has been amended as follows:”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-Radcliffes-Le-Brasseur_Redacted.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Have commissioning teams liaise with relevant organisations to facilitate uptake of new guidance and resources supporting management of severe allergies.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• I will ensure your report is sent to HEE and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Our commissioning teams will liaise directly with all relevant organisations to facilitate uptake of any new guidance and resource that would support better management of people with severe allergies.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-NHS-England_Redacted.pdf
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Consider whether communication routes or commissioning levers can support uptake and embedding of new allergy guidance and resources.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are deeply saddened by Shante’s death. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to your concerns relevant to NHSEI. We will continue to work with HEE, the professional Royal Colleges and the other organisations addressed in your report to keep abreast of any new guidance or resources that they produce that would support better management of people with severe allergies. We will consider whether any of our communication routes or commissioning levers can help with their uptake and embedding.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-NHS-England_Redacted.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 August 2020

    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

    Matters of concern 1–14 and 20 do not concern NHS Pathways and fall outside its remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “HM Coroner raised matters of concern numbered 1 - 20 in the PFD report. Matters of concern 1 – 14 and 20 are not applicable to NHS Pathways. We set out below our response to matters of concern 15 to 19.”

    Source location

    2020-0124-Response-from-NHS-Digital_Redacted-1.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 August 2020

    Open published response
  7. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Daniel Jeffrey Moran · 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

    Daniel Jeffrey Moran was pronounced dead at home on 14 July 2019 after using a rope as a ligature to partially suspend himself from a window. He had a history of depression, alcohol misuse and multiple recent suicide attempts, and had self-discharged from hospital after being assessed as not meeting the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act. Concerns included staff understanding of confidentiality, patient-flow prioritisation, roles and responsibilities in managing risk, documentation, and decisions about self-discharge and detention.

    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 recognise when patient confidentiality should be breached to notify family or friends about patient safety or welfare concerns

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Staff were unaware of the situations where it was appropriate to breach patient confidentiality and notify family or friends, when concerns arose regarding patient safety/welfare. ”

    Source location

    Daniel Jeffrey Moran · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. Black Country

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Madhavbhai Khushalbhai Patel · 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

    Mr Madhavbhai Khushalbhai Patel, a 95-year-old man living at home, choked on food during a meal on 13 May 2019 and died despite emergency treatment. Concerns included that the family had not been given the IDDSI definition of “bite sized”, and that there had been no specific assessment or advice concerning bread products or eating with his hands. The inquest did not find these matters causative or contributory to his 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 provide families with the IDDSI definition of ‘bite sized’

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) On the 30/8/18 the deceased had a swallow assessment undertaken at home by the SALT team following a referral by the GP. The recommendations were that a) liquids should be taken in a mildly thick form to slow down the rate of swallow and b) the deceased should follow a soft and bite sized diet. There was no evidence at the inquest that the family had been provided with the definition of ‘bite sized’ in accordance with the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) of 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm. (2) The evidence was that the Eating & drinking plan provided to the family following the assessment did not contain the IDDSI definition of ‘bite sized’. (3) There was no evidence that the family had been provided with a leaflet making reference to the definition of ‘bite sized’. (4) The evidence was that no specific assessment had been undertaken or advice given with regard to bread or bread products despite the knowledge that the deceased would be following an Indian style diet including bread type products including roti and chapatis in accordance with IDDSI guidelines. (5) There was no evidence that advice had been given to the family regarding the deceased’s practice of eating with his hands. The inquest did not find that any of the above matters were causative or contributory to death. ”

    Source location

    Mr Madhavbhai Khushalbhai Patel · 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 dysphagia policy to incorporate current IDDSI standards.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. We will be reviewing and updating our dysphagia policy to fully incorporate the current IDDSI standards to ensure our delivery of care to patients in all settings is undertaken in adherence to these international best practice guidelines by June 2020.”

    Source location

    2020-0006-Response-from-Walsall-NHS-Trust-Redacted
    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

    Replace internally developed patient documents with IDDSI guidance covering food, fluids, portion sizes, bite sizes and transitional foods.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. We will be replacing our current internally developed patient documents with those provided by IDDSI which provide clearer visual guidance to patients and their families / carers about the recommended food and fluid intake as well as the appropriate size of portions and the size of each bite. These documents also include specific reference to ‘transitional foods’, such as breads or similar products such as roti and chapatti, with guidance and an assessment criteria for their consumption. We aim to complete this transition on or before April 1st 2020.”

    Source location

    2020-0006-Response-from-Walsall-NHS-Trust-Redacted
    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

    Implement a staff checklist in patient records prompting and evidencing distribution of supportive and advisory documents.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “6. A revised checklist for staff will be implemented to be included within patients records to assure that staff are prompted to handout all relevant supportive and advisory documents to patients and their family / carers and that this can be evidenced. This too will form part of a revised policy but we would anticipate this coming into use prior to the final ratification of the policy to ensure patients are supported.”

    Source location

    2020-0006-Response-from-Walsall-NHS-Trust-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 February 2020

    Open published response
  9. Staffordshire South

    AI-generated summary

    Keith Graham WHETTON · 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

    Keith Graham WHETTON had an unwitnessed fall in his care home on 7 September 2019, was later found to have a fractured right hip, underwent surgery, and died at the care home on 5 October 2019. Concerns included the delay in seeking medical attention after the fall and the possibility that family members were not informed promptly.

    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 inform family members promptly about a fall

    Wider context from the report

    “You should already be aware of the concerns in this matter. Even if medical attention was not sought for Keith on 7th September it clearly should have been requested on 8th September. We hope that this has now been taken on board by your home. Additionally, family members felt that they should have been informed earlier about Keith’s fall and I wonder if lessons have been learned here as well. ”

    Source location

    Keith Graham WHETTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  10. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Emma Jayne Langley · 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

    Emma Jayne Langley developed headache and vomiting after being diagnosed with an ear infection, and an ambulance attended her home. She was not taken to hospital, later collapsed, and was confirmed deceased; post-mortem tests identified Streptococcus pneumoniae and the medical cause of death was acute meningitis. The principal concern was that the process for recording non-conveyance did not adequately communicate to the patient or family that they were rejecting medical advice to admit her to hospital.

    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 clearly communicate that non-conveyance constitutes rejection of medical advice to distressed patients or their families

    Wider context from the report

    “The deceased/her family were keen for her to be admitted to hospital. The paramedic asked the deceased’s partner to sign the ‘non-conveyance’ statement on his EPR tablet after summarising a 1 hour 45 minute attendance. The rejection of medical advice was diluted by other details. The deceased’s partner stated he did not appreciate what he was signing. He was distressed and emotional and the room had been busy with family members, the paramedics and his ill partner. In my judgment, the facts of this case demonstrate the current system of signing a screen on a tablet after a generic summary, does not adequately amplify to a patient/their family (who might be distressed and emotional) they are rejecting medical advice to be admitted to hospital. ”

    Source location

    Emma Jayne Langley · 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 electronic patient report software to display a clear refusal-of-treatment, transport or referral statement before signing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Response – We are currently in the process of changing the software on our electronic patient report to include a statement that will be visible on the screen where patients, family or carers will see and read prior to signing. This statement clearly sets out that they are signing to acknowledge the refusal for treatment and/or transport to hospital and/or referral for further care against the advice of the attending ambulance clinicians. It also goes on to state that the risks of this has been explained to them by the attending clinicians and they understand those risks.”

    Source location

    2019-0384-Response-by-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 27 December 2019

    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

    Revise the refusal-of-care policy to clarify clinician expectations when patients decline treatment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A review of the Trusts policy has also been undertaken in relation to the refusal of a patient to receive care and changes have been made to provide clarity to all our clinicians over the expectations on them where a patient declines treatment.”

    Source location

    2019-0384-Response-by-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 December 2019

    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

    Amend the patient discharge advice leaflet to provide clearer guidance for patients left at the scene after ambulance attendance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Changes have also been made to the patient discharge advice leaflet which will provide clearer advice and guidance to patients who are left on scene following our attendance.”

    Source location

    2019-0384-Response-by-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 December 2019

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026