Recurring concern

Unreliable arrangement and communication of patient appointments and follow-up

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 30 Jan 2013•Latest report 23 Oct 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of the patient-facing appointment communication and follow-up process, including reminders, contact after non-attendance, communication of appointment requirements, and communication or arrangement of required repeat or subsequent appointments.

Not included

  • Excludes failures to provide the clinical assessment or treatment itself where appointment communication is not the concern.
  • Excludes generic record-keeping, staffing or information-transfer failures unless they directly make patient appointment or follow-up communication unreliable.
  • Excludes communication unrelated to arranging, confirming, changing or following up a patient appointment.
Reports
42

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
46

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
46

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 Care5
NHS England4
Care Quality Commission3
Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership2
Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust2
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board2
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust2
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust2
Ashford and St Peter'S Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1
CAMHS East – Cross Street Clinic1
Care UK1
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust1
City Health Care Partnership CIC1
Community Mental Health Recovery Services (Surrey and Borders Partnership)1
County Durham and Darlington 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. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

    AI-generated summary

    Lynn SILCOCK · 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

    Lynn Silcock was admitted to hospital in September 2022 with symptoms including breathlessness and fatigue, and was diagnosed with aortic stenosis among other conditions. She was discharged without a cardiology referral, appointment or plan, and a gastroscopy report was not followed by a cardiology referral. She died at home on 10 July 2025; the postmortem identified aortic stenosis on a background of bicuspid aortic valve, with myocardial fibrosis. The report raised concerns about communication and document exchange between teams, the absence of an appropriate referral, and the lack of an investigation into what went wrong.

    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 arrange cardiology follow-up after discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Discharged without a cardiology clinic appointment or plan to be later referred. ”

    Source location

    Lynn SILCOCK · 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

    Conduct a Patient Safety Incident Investigation into inpatient-to-outpatient referral risks and identify the safest referral system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The case of Mrs Silcock has been raised as a Patient Safety Investigation (PSII) under the Patient Safety Incident Response framework and some of the initial work of that investigation has been used to inform the response outlined in this letter.”

    Source location

    Response from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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 each inpatient specialty to document and share a standard operating procedure defining referral processes, responsibilities and safety-netting.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the short to medium term the Trust’s Medical Director and Deputy Medical Director are tasking the leadership teams of our clinical divisions to ensure each inpatient specialty has a clear standard operating procedure (SOP) for inpatient to outpatient referrals. This will be documented and shared across the team with clear direction on process, roles, and responsibilities in ensuring referrals are made and a system of safety netting is in place to ensure decisions to refer to other specialties are followed through and actioned.”

    Source location

    Response from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Establish a single outpatient-referral email for each specialty, with referrals managed through standard triage and follow-up processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There will be a single referral email for each specialty for referral for outpatient follow-up, the referrals within the team will then be managed in the standard way all referrals are with appropriate triage. This process will be developed over the next 3 months with SOPs developed and appropriate communications cascaded.”

    Source location

    Response from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Raise a project feasibility request to assess a digital referral-management solution for scoping and potential inclusion on the Trust’s digital roadmap.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A project feasibility request has already been raised to assess the need for a digital solution to support referral management. This is the route whereby needs are reviewed and scoped to develop proposals and business cases to place the need on the Trusts ‘digital roadmap’ (the overall programme of work to mature the Trusts digital systems).”

    Source location

    Response from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital
    Page 4 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Responsibility for making the cardiology referral lay with the medical inpatient team, not gastroenterology, at discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The possibility of bleeding or malignancy led to the endoscopy investigations being prioritised with cardiology advising these should be completed first then cardiology would continue the process to investigate the aortic stenosis. On review it is clear there was no expectation that the gastroenterology team would be responsible for following up the referral to cardiology once Ms Silcock’s endoscopy investigations were completed.”

    Source location

    Response from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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 concerns fall outside NHS England’s role and remit as a commissioner of certain healthcare services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The concerns raised in your Report will be dealt with by SATH, to whom your Report has also been addressed, and there is no action for NHS England to take in regard to this matter as the issues fall outside of NHS England’s role and remit as a commissioner of certain healthcare services. However, the following information may be useful to the Coroner as background.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust is responsible for addressing the concerns raised in the report.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The concerns raised in your Report will be dealt with by SATH, to whom your Report has also been addressed, and there is no action for NHS England to take in regard to this matter as the issues fall outside of NHS England’s role and remit as a commissioner of certain healthcare services. However, the following information may be useful to the Coroner as background.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    Open published response
  2. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Esther Jane Lancaster Byrne · 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

    Esther Jane Lancaster Byrne, who had vascular dementia and was extremely frail, died at her care home on 18 December 2024 after deterioration following a fall, a neck of femur fracture, surgery and discharge back to the care home. Concerns included poor communication with the family and power-of-attorney holder, misunderstandings about her baseline and mobility affecting discharge planning, failure to arrange follow-up, and doubts about the quality and accuracy of outsourced radiological reporting.

    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 arrange follow-up appointments after discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “3. It was accepted that a follow up appointment should have been arranged for the deceased after discharge and there was no explanation for why this was not arranged. ”

    Source location

    Esther Jane Lancaster Byrne · 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

    Use a discharge process requiring follow-up appointments when needed and documenting confirmation in patient records.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The accountable doctor, ████████ accepts that the lack of a scheduled follow up appointment was an error on his part. A discharge process is in place to include scheduling a follow up appointment for every patient (if required) and confirmation is documented in the patient records. To ensure compliance with this process regular ward audits will be completed to provide assurance.”

    Source location

    Response from County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 11 June 2025

    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 regular ward audits to monitor compliance with the follow-up appointment process.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The accountable doctor, ████████ accepts that the lack of a scheduled follow up appointment was an error on his part. A discharge process is in place to include scheduling a follow up appointment for every patient (if required) and confirmation is documented in the patient records. To ensure compliance with this process regular ward audits will be completed to provide assurance.”

    Source location

    Response from County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 11 June 2025

    Open published response
  3. Cheshire

    AI-generated summary

    Joseph David POWELL · 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

    Joseph David POWELL, aged 28, was found suspended at his home on 6 September 2024 and did not respond to resuscitation. The principal concern was that requiring patients with mental health difficulties to book their own GP follow-up may result in missed reviews and no further medication.

    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 book follow-up appointments for patients presenting with mental health difficulties

    Wider context from the report

    “1) That not all GPs book follow up appointments for patients presenting with mental health difficulties such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Instead, they request that the patient book their own follow up appointment with their GP. This can be difficult for patients who are suffering from mental health difficulties and can result in patients not receiving a follow up appointment with their GP or any further medication. ”

    Source location

    Joseph David POWELL · 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

    Consider GP booking of follow-up appointments where this forms part of a patient's safety plan.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The RCGP actively promotes ongoing professional development for its members, and it has a Mental Health Special Interest Group (SIG). As a College our action shall be to highlight this case to the Mental Health SIG to support further promotion of safety planning in suicide prevention for people with mental health conditions and to consider GP booking of appointments where this is a part of the safety plan.”

    Source location

    Response from RCGP
    Page 2 · response
    Published 21 May 2025

    Open published response
  4. South Wales Central

    AI-generated summary

    Sara GRINNELL · 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

    Sara Grinnell experienced excessive vaginal bleeding and menorrhagia, with repeated referrals to gynaecology before being diagnosed with endometrial cancer in June 2021. A planned hysterectomy was postponed, her treatment options became palliative, and she died on 11 April 2022. The principal concerns were delays exceeding 22 weeks in contacting her after an urgent referral, reliance on written correspondence without further contact methods, insufficient regard to earlier referrals, and a 24-month delay between urgent referral and diagnosis.

    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 consider alternative contact methods for urgent gynaecology appointments

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Following an ultrasound scan performed in June 2019, and urgent referral to the Gynaecology Department, there was extensive delay in excess of 22 weeks in attempting to contact the patient with an urgent appointment. (2) The means of contacting the patient for an Urgent Gynaecology appointment was via written correspondence without further consideration of other means via telephone, email, or via G.P. (3) When the G.P re-referred the patient to the Gynaecology Department due to ongoing and worsening symptoms, there was a lack of regard to earlier referrals and the extensive delay that had already occurred and a missed opportunity to escalate the urgency of contact. (3) As a consequence, this resulted a significant delay of 24 months between the urgent referral to Gynaecology Department and eventual diagnosis. ”

    Source location

    Sara GRINNELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    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

    Written correspondence was considered adequate and effective; no evidence showed alternative contact methods would have increased appointment attendance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our primary communication method with Ms. Grinnell has consistently been written correspondence. We made three documented attempts to reach her on November 21st, November 28th, and December 12th, 2019. Historically, written communication has been effective, as evidenced by Ms. Grinnell’s response to a January 2018 letter, which she received and then attended the scheduled appointment.”

    Source location

    Response from Cwn Taf Morgannwg University Health Board
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 September 2024

    Open published response
  5. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Mrs Gillian Patricia Stokes · 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

    Mrs Gillian Patricia Stokes died from sarcoma of the right chest wall after previously receiving radiotherapy for breast cancer and having breast reconstructive surgery with an implant. The report raises concerns about insufficient guidance for identifying radiation-induced sarcoma and imaging the chest wall in patients with implants, the five-year surveillance period after breast cancer, and the failure to arrange a recommended two-week follow-up after aspiration.

    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 required follow-up to families

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) I have concerns regarding the system in place at Ashford Hospital for 2 week follow ups following an aspiration following an initial assessment at the One Stop Clinic. Following the aspiration Mrs Stokes received, the Nurse advised in evidence Mrs Stokes should have had a further review after two weeks, as indicated in the paperwork, but this was not followed through by the hospital and the message was not clearly communicated to the family. This would have allowed for further follow up in case the bulge had increased in size and in pain and could have potentially identified the need to investigate further. ”

    Source location

    Mrs Gillian Patricia Stokes · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    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 complete scheduled two-week follow-up after aspiration

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) I have concerns regarding the system in place at Ashford Hospital for 2 week follow ups following an aspiration following an initial assessment at the One Stop Clinic. Following the aspiration Mrs Stokes received, the Nurse advised in evidence Mrs Stokes should have had a further review after two weeks, as indicated in the paperwork, but this was not followed through by the hospital and the message was not clearly communicated to the family. This would have allowed for further follow up in case the bulge had increased in size and in pain and could have potentially identified the need to investigate further. ”

    Source location

    Mrs Gillian Patricia Stokes · 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

    Review the One Stop Shop breast clinic appointments process.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regards to matter of concern 3, the Trust has reviewed the appointments process within the One Stop Shop breast clinic and has found the following:”

    Source location

    Response from Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 August 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

    Develop and finalise a standard operating procedure standardising Breast One Stop Shop Clinic follow-up, including earlier review where needed, and provide it to the court.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Division is in the process of developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Breast One Stop Shop Clinic, which will outline the guidelines for patient follow-up care. The aim of this SOP is to create a follow-up process that is both standardised and tailored to individual patient needs. The process will accommodate patients requiring earlier follow-up in some circumstances. Once the SOP has been finalised, a copy will be provided to the court for information and assurance.”

    Source location

    Response from Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 August 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 Department cannot comment on the two-week follow-up because it was a local arrangement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Finally, I regret to hear that Mrs Stokes was not invited for a follow up appointment following her initial assessment within two weeks as recommended by the nurse at the Ashford Hospital One Stop Clinic, and that this requirement was not communicated clearly to her family. As this appears to be a local arrangement, I am unable to comment on this point. However, I understand that Ashford & St Peters NHS Trust is also a recipient of your Report and is preparing a full response.”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 August 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

    Ashford & St Peters NHS Trust is responsible for responding fully to the local follow-up concern.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Finally, I regret to hear that Mrs Stokes was not invited for a follow up appointment following her initial assessment within two weeks as recommended by the nurse at the Ashford Hospital One Stop Clinic, and that this requirement was not communicated clearly to her family. As this appears to be a local arrangement, I am unable to comment on this point. However, I understand that Ashford & St Peters NHS Trust is also a recipient of your Report and is preparing a full response.”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 August 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

    Matters of concern 1 and 2 will be addressed by the President of the Royal College of Radiologists.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I understand that the Regulation 28 report has also been sent to the President of the Royal College of Radiologists who will respond to matters of concern 1 and 2.”

    Source location

    Response from Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 August 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 organisation cannot comment on Ashford Hospital’s follow-up appointment system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The RCN is unable to comment on the system in place for follow-up appointments at Ashford Hospital. However, we can say that a clear process should be in place for organisation of follow-up appointments. The experience of our members would indicate that there is on occasion a lack of administrative support for nurses undertaking specialist or advanced roles, and whilst we do not know if this was the case at this hospital, it is vital that there are the appropriate staff with the requisite knowledge and skills supported by systems and processes to enable timely follow up and progression of clinical recommendations.”

    Source location

    2024-0436 - Response from RCN
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 August 2024

    Open published response
  6. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Owen Donald GARDNER · 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

    Owen Donald GARDNER, aged 29, died following a road traffic collision; the medical cause of death was recorded as multiple injuries. The report raises concern that agreed next-of-kin contacts were not consistently informed about appointments or short-notice changes, contributing to missed appointments for a person with limited short-term memory and cognitive deficit, and that no system was in place to facilitate this.

    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 consistently inform agreed next-of-kin contacts of appointments

    Wider context from the report

    “In evidence it was heard that Owen had a limited short-term memory and a cognitive deficit, due to the previous Traumatic Brain Injuries that he had suffered. As a result of Owen’s limited short-term memory and cognitive deficit, it was agreed that his next of kin would be informed of all of the appointments Owen had with the NSFT clinician’s providing his care. Evidence at inquest heard that Owen’s next of kin had been informed of such meetings on some occasions, but that it did not occur on every occasion. In addition, evidence was heard that when meetings were changed a short notice (due to unforeseen circumstances, staff sickness or leave absence), Owen himself would be informed, but not his agreed next of kin contact. This led to Owen missing a number of appointments as he had forgotten the changes made, whereas his next of kin would have been able to remind him, and prompt him to attend. It was acknowledged by the court, that in Owen’s case there was no evidence that his attendance at one of his missed appointments would have changed the tragic outcome. However, I am concerned that in the future, an individual with a short-term memory and a cognitive deficit will miss an appointment which could prevent their death, if their next of kin (or chosen point of contact) are not also told of short notice changes to the timings of that appointment. Evidence was heard that there is no system in place to facilitate this. ”

    Source location

    Owen Donald GARDNER · 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

    Develop and assess a Lorenzo enhancement for sending appointment correspondence to nominated next of kin or carers according to patient preference.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2. In the interim the trust has commenced work on enhancing the current EPR, Lorenzo. We have identified a potential enhancement that will allow staff to indicate, when generating correspondence (including appointments) that the correspondence should also be sent to the Next of Kin or Carer, according to stated patient preference.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 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

    Issue a patient safety alert keeping communication with next of kin and carers a primary staff focus during system changes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. The Trust has also issued a patient safety alert to ensure the process remains a primary focus for our staff while this work is completed. This is attached for information.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 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

    Update the community services standard operating procedure with Lorenzo guidance and expectations for recording communication preferences in care documentation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. In addition, our community services standard operating procedure will be updated to include the guidance on the enhanced changes to Lorenzo, along with confirmation of the expectation that communication preferences will be noted in the service user care plan/combined assessment for ease of reference when communicating with service users and those supporting them.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 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

    Continue the Think Carer and Family programme to improve consistent recording of carers and next of kin, including Trust-wide rollout from October 2025.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “5. The Trust had also initiated a Listening into Action™ pioneer programme called Think Carer and Family. The Listening into Action™ programme approach is a comprehensive, systemic, outcome-oriented approach to empower staff at all levels to work through any challenges to ensure quality outcomes. In order to bring greater consistency to recording next of kin details to ensure that the technical improvement and system expectation mentioned in the above paragraphs can be meaningfully applied, the aim of the Think Carer and Family LiA programme which was launched on 10 June 2024 is to have 90% of carers and 100% of Next of Kin documented on service users’ records. Initially within Child and Adolescent Mental Health Team, West Suffolk, and Adult Crisis and Resolution Home Treatment Team, West Suffolk, rolling out to the rest of the trust from October 2025.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 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

    Ensure future assessments consider short-term memory difficulties and record communication preferences in combined assessments, recovery plans and safety plans.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The outcome from this meeting was that the EPR system enhancement noted at paragraph 2 will be helpful and the team, mutually ensure that all future assessments will include consideration of possible short term memory difficulties and confirmation of communication preferences which will be recorded in the combined assessment/recovery plan and safety plans.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 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

    No single technical solution can fully mitigate appointment communication risk; mitigation requires a range of actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is most often the case that routine appointments are communicated by letter however urgent or cancellation appointment offers may be made via text, email or through telephone calls based on the agreed method and timeframe to the appointment. This means there is no one single technical solution that will fully mitigate the risk but a range of actions.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 30 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 proposed Lorenzo enhancement cannot be implemented until clinical safety and information governance compliance are confirmed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2. In the interim the trust has commenced work on enhancing the current EPR, Lorenzo. We have identified a potential enhancement that will allow staff to indicate, when generating correspondence (including appointments) that the correspondence should also be sent to the Next of Kin or Carer, according to stated patient preference.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 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 new electronic patient record is delayed because procurement must follow the nationally mandated purchasing route.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. The Trust is in the process of procuring a new Electronic Patient Record (EPR) which includes ‘patient portal’ functionality that will enhance our capabilities for appointment scheduling, particularly in terms of visibility for patients. This new EPR is approximately two years from being”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 30 July 2024

    Open published response
  7. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Margaret Ann PILGRIM · 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

    Margaret Ann Pilgrim died at Princess Alexandra Hospital on 29 June 2023 from congestive cardiac failure and bronchopneumonia, against a background of frailty, after an unwitnessed fall at home caused a fractured clavicle. The fracture was reported on an X-ray during her hospital admission but was not noted on her discharge summary. Concerns included the absence of treatment, pain relief, care-package consideration and fracture-clinic follow-up, and the failure to inform the patient, her family or GP about the fracture.

    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 book fracture clinic follow-up

    Wider context from the report

    “Mrs Pilgrim’s collapse at home was multifactorial due to natural causes however, she sustained a fractured clavicle that was reported on her X-Ray during her admission to hospital. This was not noted, and Mrs Pilgrim was discharged. (1) The Trust did not treat the patient for the fracture who was discharged with no pain relief or consideration of care package (2) The Discharge Summary omitted to inform the patient, her family or her GP of the fracture and no follow-up in the fracture clinic was booked (3) The fracture was only confirmed when the GP raised the concerns of the family with the Trust and the GP arranged analgesia, social care contact and follow-up for the fracture clinic. ”

    Source location

    Margaret Ann PILGRIM · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    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 fracture was minimally displaced and would not have required restricted mobilisation or orthopaedic follow-up if identified.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- The fracture was not identified prior to the patient being discharged, due to the minimal displacement, which was reviewed by ED clinical team and not radiologist. Had the fracture been identified and orthopaedic advice sought, they would have recommended the patient to mobilise without restriction. No follow up would have been deemed necessary with this fracture.”

    Source location

    Response from Princess Alexandra Hospital
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 June 2024

    Open published response
  8. East Riding and Hull

    AI-generated summary

    Linda Heath · 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

    Linda Heath was discharged from hospital with a sacral sore, but the discharge information did not include a required district nursing referral and no referral was made. Her condition worsened, she was admitted to hospital, and she died on 31 March 2022 from sepsis caused by an infected sacral sore. The substantive concerns included inadequate discharge information, failure to arrange district nursing care, insufficient follow-up after discharge, and over-reliance on private domiciliary carers without sufficient enquiry into their remit.

    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

    Absence of GP follow-up triggers for recently discharged patients with worsening conditions and missed routine appointments

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) No trigger appears to exist whereby GPs conduct follow up enquiries or visits to patients who have recently been discharged from hospital and who are complaining of a condition which may worsen and failing to attend routine appointments due to a worsening of their condition. ”

    Source location

    Linda Heath · 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

    Share the review findings with CQC’s Primary and Community Care operations team for consideration in its regulatory response.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A national professional advisor and senior specialist for Primary and Community Care at CQC have reviewed the coroner’s letter, evidence bundle, the clinical records and practice response to the integrated care board who would cover the oversight of this GP practice. The findings will be shared with the operations team for Primary and Community Care to consider alongside other information held by CQC. This will inform our regulatory response.”

    Source location

    Response from CQC
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 May 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

    Concerns about points 2 and 3 relate to primary care rather than the Trust’s responsive responsibilities.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Matters of concern at paragraph 5 of the Report are noted, and the Trust responds as it did at the Inquest in relation to points 1 and 4. Points 2 and 3 relate to primary care.”

    Source location

    Response from HUTH
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 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

    Providers involved in Linda’s care should address the specific care concerns, provide further information, and identify related learning.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Your Report raises some concerns that would be more appropriately answered by the providers involved in Linda’s care, who I note you have also addressed your Report to. My response to your focuses on those areas that fall within the remit of NHS England’s national policy and programmes, although my regional colleagues have engaged with the Humber and North Yorkshire Health and Care Partnership on the concerns raised, as this is system in which the providers involved in Linda’s care operate.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 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

    Oversight of the GP practice is assigned to the integrated care board, while findings inform CQC’s regulatory response.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A national professional advisor and senior specialist for Primary and Community Care at CQC have reviewed the coroner’s letter, evidence bundle, the clinical records and practice response to the integrated care board who would cover the oversight of this GP practice. The findings will be shared with the operations team for Primary and Community Care to consider alongside other information held by CQC. This will inform our regulatory response.”

    Source location

    Response from CQC
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 May 2024

    Open published response
  9. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Paul William BRADLEY · 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

    Paul William Bradley was diagnosed with renal cancer in July 2019 and died in hospital on 17 May 2023 after the tumour had become metastatic. The report identified missed follow-up after a urology appointment in March 2021, inadequate systems for tracking missed appointments, and insufficient communication between the urology and vascular teams as substantive concerns.

    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 clear system for following up missed important urology appointments and meeting treatment targets

    Wider context from the report

    “(a) The Trust’s urology team had no clear system in place to try to ensure that a patient who missed an important urology appointment could be followed up, and his treatment targets met. That still appears to be the case; ”

    Source location

    Paul William BRADLEY · 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

    Develop a standard operating procedure for monitoring potentially cancerous lesions, including information transfer between teams.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The following actions were agreed with named individuals responsible for their delivery: -”

    Source location

    Response from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 June 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

    Develop a risk-stratification process within clinical teams for patients who cancel appointments or do not attend.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The following actions were agreed with named individuals responsible for their delivery: -”

    Source location

    Response from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 June 2024

    Open published response
  10. North Yorkshire and York

    AI-generated summary

    Carole MCQUINN · 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

    Carole MCQUINN underwent pancreatic surgery in February 2022 and subsequently experienced pancreatic leakage, abdominal collections and prolonged hospital treatment. After discharge without a discharge note, medication or follow-up appointment, concerns about infection were not adequately recorded or escalated, and a positive swab result was not reviewed until several days later. She was later admitted with suspected intra-abdominal sepsis and was found unresponsive in hospital; the inquest concluded that she died from a pulmonary embolism likely related to post-operative infection, inflammation and immobility.

    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 arrange follow-up appointments at discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The deceased was discharged from hospital on the evening of 20th April 2022 with no discharge note, medications or follow-up appointment. I heard evidence that evening discharges are a cause for concern for the Trust itself, and that while consideration is being given to ensuring follow-up appointments are set on discharge, this is not yet currently in place. Trust staff were falsely reassured in this case that the deceased had this safety net in place when she did not. ”

    Source location

    Carole MCQUINN · 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

    Provide AMS CSU patients with discharge notes, booked follow-up appointments, wound-care plans, medication or supplies, and community-support instructions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since this review all staff involved in the discharge process have been informed of the team’s requirements, including providing patients with (a) a paper copy of their discharge note on leaving the ward even if medication has yet to be dispensed, (b) the date and time of outpatient follow-up appointments, (c) wound care plans, (d) supplies of medication, dressings etc. They have been reminded of their responsibility for making appropriate arrangements for community resources such as district nursing and the need for clear instructions about repeat prescriptions in the discharge summary. The document template for the electronic discharge note (EDAN) has also been amended to ensure that all relevant information and advice is included and can be reviewed by patients, their relatives and their GPs.”

    Source location

    Response from Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 21 July 2023

    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 electronic discharge-note template to include required discharge information and advice.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since this review all staff involved in the discharge process have been informed of the team’s requirements, including providing patients with (a) a paper copy of their discharge note on leaving the ward even if medication has yet to be dispensed, (b) the date and time of outpatient follow-up appointments, (c) wound care plans, (d) supplies of medication, dressings etc. They have been reminded of their responsibility for making appropriate arrangements for community resources such as district nursing and the need for clear instructions about repeat prescriptions in the discharge summary. The document template for the electronic discharge note (EDAN) has also been amended to ensure that all relevant information and advice is included and can be reviewed by patients, their relatives and their GPs.”

    Source location

    Response from Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 21 July 2023

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026