Recurring concern

Failure to recognise and manage post-endoscopy complications

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 16 Nov 2015•Latest report 21 Jun 2021

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes only assertions that directly instantiate the manually reviewed condition ‘Failure to recognise and manage post-endoscopy complications’ and satisfy this evidence boundary: Two distinct reports directly support absent post-ERCP complication pathways and failure to act on an endoscopy report indicating a dangerous complication. The separate formal ERCP case-review assertion concerns retrospective governance after cases, not direct recognition or management of a patient's complication; exclude that seed.

Not included

  • Excludes generic failures to review clinical reports or investigation results where no endoscopy-related complication is identified.
  • Excludes routine endoscopy access, scheduling, consent or technical-performance failures when no post-endoscopy complication-management deficiency is asserted.
  • Excludes failures in managing complications after unrelated procedures unless the assertion explicitly concerns the same post-endoscopy complication process.
  • Excludes failures occurring after an endoscopy complication has been reliably recognised and appropriately escalated when the remaining issue is unrelated downstream care.
  • Excludes manifestations outside the manually reviewed boundary: Two distinct reports directly support absent post-ERCP complication pathways and failure to act on an endoscopy report indicating a dangerous complication. The separate formal ERCP case-review assertion concerns retrospective governance after cases, not direct recognition or management of a patient's complication; exclude that seed.
Reports
3

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
3

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2021

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
2

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.

Calderdale Royal Hospital1
Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust1
University Hospitals Plymouth NHS 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. Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Name not published · 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

    The deceased had significant comorbidities, including ischaemic heart disease, and was admitted to hospital for a blood transfusion following a diagnosis of anaemia. An endoscopy to investigate blood loss was abandoned, and on the balance of probability her oesophagus was perforated during the procedure; she developed surgical emphysema, deteriorated and died at Derriford Hospital on 11 December 2017. Concerns included discrepancies in consent for endoscopy, failure to perform or address a ‘sip test’ to exclude aspiration, failure to act on a report indicating a possible dangerous complication, and inadequate record-keeping or transfer of records by senior staff.

    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 act on an endoscopy report indicating a possible dangerous complication

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) A doctor did not take action when viewing an endoscopy report which contained an indication of a possible dangerous complication. ”

    Source location

    Name not published · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. West Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    June Elsie Parkes · 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

    June Elsie Parkes became unwell with symptoms of an upper gastrointestinal bleed and was admitted to hospital on 14 December 2014. She later deteriorated and died shortly after being transferred to Huddersfield Royal Infirmary on 17 December 2014. The concerns included delays and gaps in systems for urgent or emergency endoscopy and surgery, monitoring and escalation, record keeping, and the transfer of critically ill patients.

    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

    Lack of protocol guidance for identifying post-endoscopy rebleeding

    Wider context from the report

    “A. The provision and systems in place to identify and undertake urgent or emergency endoscopies at Calderdale royal hospital “in hours” i) From the details set out in section 4, there appears to have been various issues which resulted in a significant length of time elapsing between Mrs Parkes being identified as requiring an urgent endoscopy, and it actually being carried out, which didn’t reflect the timescale recommended within current NICE guidance. ii) The present protocol gives guidance for patients that present with a suspected upper GI bleed out of hours but does not provide guidance for “in hours” iii) the present protocol does not provide guidance to identify a patient who may have suffered a rebleed post endoscopy and what measures should be considered ”

    Source location

    June Elsie Parkes · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. Mid Kent and Medway

    AI-generated summary

    Christine McNamara · 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

    Christine McNamara was admitted for an elective ERCP, developed symptoms of bowel perforation, deteriorated despite treatment and died at Maidstone Hospital on 27 February 2015. The concerns identified were the absence of a pathway or guideline for post-ERCP complications and limitations on out-of-hours radiography referrals and surgical consultant cover.

    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

    Lack of a pathway or guideline for post-ERCP patients who develop complications

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It was established during the inquest that there was no pathway or guideline in place for post ERCP patients who develop complications ”

    Source location

    Christine McNamara · 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

    Implement a pathway for managing suspected post-endoscopy complications, perforations or leaks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1) It was established during the inquest that there was no pathway or guideline in place for post ERCP patients who develop complications”

    Source location

    2015-0436-Response-by-Maidstone-and-Tunbridge-Wells-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 November 2015

    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

    Review the implemented pathway after six months to determine whether staff require further clarity.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are committed to ensuring that this pathway successfully addresses the potential issues regarding the appropriate escalation of unwell patients at all times – wherever they are within the Trust, and on whichever site. To ensure that the pathway adequately addresses the issues as intended, we will allow an initial period of 6 months for the pathway to become embedded, before conducting a full review (scheduled for October 2016) to consider whether any further clarity is required by our staff.”

    Source location

    2015-0436-Response-by-Maidstone-and-Tunbridge-Wells-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 November 2015

    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 implemented post-endoscopy complication pathway is considered sufficient to address escalation concerns across Trust sites.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our Medical Director discussed the issues raised in your report with representatives from the medical and surgical teams, and a new pathway (The Pathway for suspected post-endoscopy complication, perforation or leak) was devised to provide clear guidance to all staff on how to manage patients who have undergone endoscopic surgery. The pathway was implemented in January 2016, and a copy of the pathway is enclosed for your information.”

    Source location

    2015-0436-Response-by-Maidstone-and-Tunbridge-Wells-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 November 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026