Recurring concern

Failure to supervise clinicians during clinical work

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 13 Dec 2013•Latest report 17 Dec 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of supervision dedicated to overseeing clinicians during clinical work, including supervision of operating surgeons, locum clinicians, staff-grade anaesthetists and preceptee nurses during medication administration.

Not included

  • Excludes supervision of patients, residents, service users or members of the public.
  • Excludes failures of clinical assessment, handover, communication, referral or escalation where inadequate clinician supervision is not the shared unsafe condition.
  • Excludes generic workforce, staffing or training deficiencies not explicitly tied to supervision of clinicians during clinical work.
Reports
22

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
23

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
29

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 Care8
NHS England4
Care Quality Commission3
General Medical Council2
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust2
Royal College of Anaesthetists2
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust2
Alternative Futures Group Limited1
Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland)1
Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust1
Difficult Airway Society1
East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust1
Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine1
Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust1
Frimley Park Hospital1

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. Sunderland

    AI-generated summary

    Valerie Jane Gibson · 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

    Valerie Jane Gibson died on 29 October 2023 at Monkwearmouth Hospital after being admitted under the Mental Health Act with psychotic symptoms and assessed as being at risk of self-harm and harm to others. The principal concerns were uncertainty and inconsistency in the checking of possessions, dispensing and administration of medication, supervision of nurses, and use of the Omnicell and electronic medication record systems, resulting in unclear records of what medication had been dispensed or administered.

    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 supervise preceptee nurses during medication administration

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence highlighted a lack of understanding with regard to supervision requirements for preceptee nurses resulting in medication being administered without supervision and being recorded on a patient’s electronic medication record (ePMA) as being administered by a different registered nurse. ”

    Source location

    Valerie Jane Gibson · 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

    Revise nursing medicines competency assessment requirements covering EPMA, Omnicell, formulations, liquid disposal, supervision scenarios and medicines-administration sequencing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- Nursing staff medicines competencies have been reviewed and updated to include use of EPMA and Omnicell.”

    Source location

    Response from Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    Open published response
  2. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Pamela Anne Marking · 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

    Pamela Anne Marking was admitted with abdominal symptoms, was diagnosed with a nosebleed by a Physician Associate and discharged without medical review or direct medical supervision. She later returned with small bowel obstruction caused by an incarcerated femoral hernia and aspirated feculent fluid during induction of anaesthesia for emergency surgery, subsequently dying from respiratory failure and sepsis. The concerns included the Physician Associate’s role, supervision and scope of practice, and the absence of updated guidance for rapid sequence induction, TIVA and airway protection.

    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

    Inadequate medical supervision of Physician Associates managing undifferentiated Emergency Department patients

    Wider context from the report

    “5. Lack of guidelines for direct supervision and consideration of an appropriate level of autonomy for Physician Associates Whilst there were discussions with the ‘supervising’ consultant the Physician Associate was effectively acting independently in the diagnosis, treatment, management and discharge of Mrs Marking without independent oversight by a medical practitioner. This gives rise to a concern that inadequate supervision or excessive delegation of undifferentiated patients in the Emergency Department to Physician Associates compromises patient safety. ”

    Source location

    Pamela Anne Marking · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Assess providers’ arrangements for safe recruitment, adequate staffing, supervision, accountability, governance, information-sharing and inclusive care involving Physician Associates.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We use these regulations when we assess if a provider is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The role of Physician Associates relates to:”

    Source location

    Response from CQC
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    Issue a position statement setting standards for Physician Associate supervision, identification, patient selection and regulation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following a period of consultation and engagement with various stakeholders, in June 2024 the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) issued a position statement regarding Physician Associates [1] which included the following:”

    Source location

    Response from RCEM
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    Update workforce-tier guidance to classify Physician Associates at Tier 1 and recommend discussion or review of their patients by Tier 4 or 5 doctors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “RCEM has recently, after an extensive consultation period, updated our workforce tiers guidance. This guidance was originally published in February 2015 and outlines what level of supervision clinicians with different levels of experience and training should be working at. The current guidance makes explicit reference to PAs as working at Tier 1 level and makes a specific recommendation that patients seen by a PA should be discussed with or reviewed”

    Source location

    Response from RCEM
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    Issue updated clinical-governance guidance supporting supervision, board-level responsibility and local governance of physician associates and anaesthesia associates.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To support employers, we have issued our updated guidance Effective clinical governance to support revalidation. It emphasises that PAs and AAs must be supervised and recommends that organisations identify an individual at Board level to be responsible for PAs and AAs. It also suggests establishing local processes to govern how these professionals are deployed and supervised. The work of a PA or AA must be overseen by a named senior doctor, and they must work together to agree appropriate limitations to their practice.”

    Source location

    Response from General Medical Council
    Page 4 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    Develop and publish website materials supporting doctors who supervise physician associates and applying relevant supervision guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are currently in the final stages of developing materials for our website, to support doctors who are supervising PAs, and help them to apply the principles in our guidance within their practice. This material, due to be published in spring, brings together all of our relevant standards, expanding on these with further advice, as well as signposting to a range of other resources published by others.”

    Source location

    Response from General Medical Council
    Page 5 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    Commission an independent review of Physician Associate and Anaesthesia Associate roles and their contribution to multidisciplinary healthcare teams.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This Government takes concerns about patient safety seriously. This is why, in November 2024, we commissioned ████████ to lead an independent review into PAs and AAs: Independent Review of the Physician Associate and Anaesthesia Associate - Hansard - UK Parliament. Whilst there are governance processes already in place for the Physician Associate (PA) and Anaesthesia Associate (AA) professions, the review will consider the safety of the roles and their contribution to multidisciplinary healthcare teams. The review will draw upon a range of national and international evidence to produce a comprehensive picture of the physician associate and anaesthesia associate roles. This will include published research, real world data, and patient and professional views.”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    Issue and implement an Emergency Department Physician Associate scope of practice requiring senior doctor oversight, appropriate patient selection, escalation, and medical review before discharge or admission.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In response to the issues raised in this Inquest, and in response to the new guidance from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, enclosed with this letter, we have issued a new scope of practice document for PAs in our ED and implemented it immediately, as of 3rd March 2025. This specifically states that it is planned for a patient to be discharged from ED after seeing a PA, that patient must first be reviewed in person by a senior ED doctor, Tier 4 or 5. All our PAs and ED Consultants have been instructed to follow this change and are supportive of it and the document has been circulated.”

    Source location

    Response from Surrey and Sussex NHS
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    Existing CQC guidance and provider governance, supervision and competence requirements apply to Physician Associates in secondary care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The CQC guidance whilst written for Physician Associates in primary care, is largely applicable in secondary care settings too.”

    Source location

    Response from CQC
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 February 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 supervising doctor decides whether a patient seen by a physician associate requires face-to-face review or discussion.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “by a tier 4 or 5 doctor [2]. The decision as to whether a patient has a face-to-face review rather than a discussion, is for the judgement of the supervising doctor who will need to take into account many factors, including those which are patient related (e.g. potential seriousness of the presentation, co-existent illnesses) as well as those which are clinician related.”

    Source location

    Response from RCEM
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    Employers, clinical leaders and supervisors must determine PAs’ permitted activities and required supervision through local clinical governance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Robust systems of clinical governance are important to ensure a consistent approach to the safe and effective deployment of PAs and AAs. Employers have a clinical governance responsibility to ensure that all their employees are appropriately trained and competent to do the activities they are tasked with. It is an employer’s responsibility, with the involvement of clinical leaders and supervisors, to determine which activities or specific tasks an individual can carry out and what level of supervision is required.”

    Source location

    Response from General Medical Council
    Page 4 · response
    Published 26 February 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 GMC is responsible for regulating physician associates, while national system leaders should develop their scope of practice and supervision framework.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The RCP believes that PAs should be working to nationally-agreed guidelines and relying on local guidelines only risks inconsistency, or at worst no agreed guidelines at all. The GMC is now responsible for regulation, but our understanding is that regulation will need to be supported by national guidelines to provide a clear framework for assessment. We would also welcome clarity of PA clinical competency at qualification; we note passing the PA exit exam is not synonymous with competency and ability in a clinical setting.”

    Source location

    Response from Royal College of Physicians
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 February 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 right to seek a second opinion should be addressed locally.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This would be addressed at a local level, but we fully support the implementation of Martha’s Rule to enable families to ask for a second opinion when they are worried about a relative’s acute deterioration. In addition, we are clear that PAs should not be making decisions independently, particularly around discharge in patients in an emergency or undifferentiated setting.”

    Source location

    Response from Royal College of Physicians
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 February 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

    GMC regulation and existing NHS guidance already govern PA regulation, competence, scope, supervision and employer clinical governance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Regulation of PAs and AAs by the General Medical Council (GMC) began in December 2024. The GMC expects the vast majority of practising PAs and AAs to join the register within the first six months of regulation, and they will be required to do so within two years of regulation commencing. PAs and AAs who are registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) are required to follow the professional standards and behaviour set out in Good medical practice. This includes introducing themselves and their role in patient care.”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 February 2025

    Open published response
  3. Leicester City and South Leicestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Lindy Lyanne ASTON · 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

    Lindy Lyanne Aston underwent a total gastrectomy for stomach cancer and later suffered a ruptured spleen, requiring emergency surgery. She was transferred from Kettering General Hospital to Leicester Royal Infirmary, where she underwent a splenectomy, remained very unwell and died on 18 October 2021. The principal concerns were the decision not to provide immediate surgery at Kettering and inadequacies in the Trust’s investigation and incident-reporting processes, which delayed learning about potential care failures.

    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 independent checks and challenge in single-surgeon emergency operating decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “1) Surgical decision making – I am concerned about the fact that the decision about whether to operate on a patient or not lies with one single surgeon with seemingly no checks or balances around their decision making. It concerns me that all of the witnesses at the inquest agreed that Mrs Aston needed immediate life-saving surgery when she presented to Kettering General Hospital yet there was no challenge to the decisions made by the on-call surgeon not to operate. ”

    Source location

    Lindy Lyanne ASTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Introduce and roll out Stop the Line across the Trust, incorporating concerns into Datix reporting and daily team huddles.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst the responsibility for decision making regarding a patient’s care rests with the named consultant, all members of the clinical team are encouraged to speak up if they have any safety concerns in real time. One such example is “Stop the Line” which was been introduced into the treatment centre in May 2023 and which has been rolled out”

    Source location

    Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 December 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

    Continue reviewing existing routes for raising concerns and challenging clinical decisions to reinforce the Trust’s safety culture.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust has a well-developed Freedom to Speak Up process with an active Freedom to Speak Up Guardian and several specialty-based Freedom to Speak Up ambassadors. Freedom to Speak Up enables staff to report any concerns if they did not feel able to do so in the moment and can be done anonymously, whereas Stop the Line is aimed at empowering staff to speak up ‘in the moment’ if there are any concerns. The Trust does have safety and raising concerns as a central part of its culture work and will continue to review existing paths to reinforce raising concerns and challenging a decision.”

    Source location

    Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 December 2023

    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 round table panel concluded that no further action was necessary regarding the concerns about the patient's care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A round table panel was convened 23/2/2022, following notification from the Coroner of Mrs Aston’s death. The panel made the decision that no further action need be taken.”

    Source location

    Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 December 2023

    Open published response
  4. Milton Keynes

    AI-generated summary

    Michael ALLEN · 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

    Michael Allen, an otherwise healthy man, was admitted to Milton Keynes University Hospital with gallstone pancreatitis and died there on 11 April 2021 from acute pancreatitis and liver necrosis resulting from gallstone disease. The report identified concerns about ineffective monitoring, inadequate senior surgical supervision, failure to initiate the sepsis protocol effectively, and delay in calling the ITU team after his deterioration.

    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 adequate support and supervision to junior doctors

    Wider context from the report

    “An FY1 doctor was effectively left to her own devices to manage Mr Allen, despite her being only 8 months or so in a post qualification position. In my mind this was a wholly unacceptable lapse on the part of her senior clinicians. She was, despite her efforts, out of her depth. This is not a criticism of the FY1 doctor, simply a reflection that she had only a few months junior surgical experience at that time. All clinicians, ████████ gave evidence that they were aware of the MKUH Sepsis protocol. However, none of them was able to describe it fully – the nearest being the most junior of the team, ████████. As a result there was a failure to initiate the sepsis protocol effectively. There was no effective senior involvement in the care of Mr Allen from the end of the 0800 am ward round to his deterioration at around 1800 or so. There was a failure to effectively or consistently monitor Mr Allen between 1059 am and his deterioration around 1800. Even at that point despite, in my mind, a critical emergency, there was a further delay of one hour before the ITU team were called. Overall, I find that the surgical team in charge of Mr Allen had no effective knowledge of the Sepsis protocol, they failed to monitor him effectively or consistently despite clear signs of deterioration, they failed to provide adequate support and supervision to ████████ and they failed to institute an effective senior review at any point on the 9th April 2021 until critical deterioration by which time his chances of death due to his rapid deterioration and multi-organ failure were 80 to 100%. ”

    Source location

    Michael ALLEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. Manchester City

    AI-generated summary

    Shona Christine Michaela Campbell · 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

    Shona Christine Michaela Campbell, a detained psychiatric patient with a history of self-harm and repeated ligature incidents, was found in cardiac arrest after using a ligature on 12 January 2019 and died in hospital on 14 February 2019. The principal concerns included incomplete and inaccurate clinical and observation records, inadequate communication, patients’ access to ligatures, insufficiently developed risk-management plans, training and staffing deficiencies, and shortcomings in the serious incident investigation.

    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 appropriate clinical supervision of nurses and support workers

    Wider context from the report

    “8. The need for appropriate clinical supervision of nurses and support workers. ”

    Source location

    Shona Christine Michaela Campbell · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 6 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. North East Kent

    AI-generated summary

    HARRY RICHFORD · 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

    Harry Richford was born at QEQM on 2 November 2017 and died at William Harvey Hospital on 9 November 2017 after being transferred there. The report describes delays in delivery, shortcomings in the caesarean delivery and neonatal resuscitation, and subsequent hypoxia and brain injury. Substantive concerns included locum recruitment, assessment and supervision; clarity about escalation to consultants; neonatal resuscitation training; record keeping and adherence to guidelines; and inaccurate death notifications and 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 assess and supervise locum clinicians

    Wider context from the report

    “Concern 1 ████████ was recruited as a locum registrar by the Hospital Trust without there appearing to have been any assessment of his skills and abilities or any supervision of him at the hospital. This was not an emergency appointment after, for example, a doctor calling in sick at the last minute. ████████ gave evidence that the recruitment, assessment and supervision of locums is a national problem and that there is a need for a review on a national level. This raises concerns that there may be a risk to other lives both at this trust and at other trusts in the future. ”

    Source location

    HARRY RICHFORD · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 8 · 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 CQC is responsible for deciding and providing further detail on regulatory action concerning the Trust’s maternity-service safety risks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In February, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) conducted an unannounced inspection of the Trust’s maternity services, after which it wrote to the Trust with an overview of its findings and sought assurance on matters relating to triage, day care and medical staffing. The full report of the CQC’s inspection will be published in due course. However, I want to assure you that the CQC continues to be in close contact with the Trust and will take regulatory action if it decides this is necessary. You have issued your report to the CQC and I expect the CQC to provide further detail on its actions.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 11 October 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Trust is responsible for setting out and implementing actions to address the identified maternity-service safety risks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I am advised that the Trust Board is taking these matters very seriously and has welcomed the national support being provided. I expect the Trust to set out in its response to your report the actions it is taking to address the important safety risks you have outlined.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 11 October 2022

    Open published response
  7. London (East)

    AI-generated summary

    Sophie Holman · 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

    Sophie Holman, a 10-year-old girl with chronic asthma, died on 13 December 2017 after collapsing during a severe asthma attack while being taken to hospital. The report identifies concerns about inadequate long-term management, fragmented records, failure to recognise the cumulative severity and risks of her asthma, lack of a coordinated asthma action plan and safety-netting, and missed opportunities for specialist referral.

    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 supervise staff delegated to provide asthma care

    Wider context from the report

    “In the primary care practice there was: a) No clear agreed practice protocol for managing asthma b) The medical records did not contain an up to date summary of current and past problems; in particular correspondence from hospitals following treatment for asthma attacks was not Read Coded. As a result clinicians consulted could not readily see the evidence of this girls chronic poorly controlled asthma c) A failure to recognise the risks of future poor outcome such as: i. Excess salbutamol prescriptions after the publication of the NRAD in May 2014. The child was prescribed 28, 22, 30 and 16 of these inhalers in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 by her general practice ii. Failure to recognise the only 5 of the required preventer inhalers were collected in Sophie’s final year of life d) No clear supervision of junior doctors and nurses delegated to provide asthma care e) Failure to objectively assess severity and progress when treating acute asthma attacks as per the UK BTS/SIGN asthma guidelines f) Failure to recognise that absence of symptoms and distress does not exclude the presence of a severe attack, as highlighted in the UK BTS/SIGN asthma guidelines g) Failure to follow up after attacks as detailed in the NICE Quality Statement of 25, 2013 h) No clear evidence of detailed specific safety netting advice and over-reliance on prescription of unlicensed, non-specific based high dose salbutamol ‘weaning plans’ which may have masked recognition of deteriorating signs due to a requirement for excess reliever medication in Sophie’s final fatal attack – which may have led the parents to seek help earlier than 24 hours after leaving the surgery i) Potentially dangerous advice on occasions: in particular when a nurse sent the child home and advised mother to administer reliever treatment with a nebuliser at home for an asthma attack j) No evidence of provision of a written Personalised Asthma Action Plan for recognition of uncontrolled asthma and attacks and any action to be taken by the family and how and when to obtain medical assistance k) There was only one example where one of the 16 general practitioners who treated this child arranged a post-attack follow-up review soon after attacks l) No attempt to increase the medication dose for three and a half years despite at least 14 recurring asthma attacks ”

    Source location

    Sophie Holman · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. West London

    AI-generated summary

    PATRICIA PRISCILLA CHAMBERS · 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

    Patricia Chambers died by suicide on 11 May 2016 after jumping from the ninth-floor communal walkway of her residence, sustaining non-survivable injuries. The inquest identified deficiencies in her mental-health discharge process, communication and continuity of care, as well as inadequate GP record keeping and document control; the report remained concerned that information could be lost or ignored and pose a risk to future deaths.

    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

    Inadequate supervision of Primary Nurses

    Wider context from the report

    “I have since heard, through counsel, that the Trust has reflected on the evidence and the jury’s findings, and accepts that there is still concern in respect of: - The Discharge Medication Summary (the “Summary”) and the 7-Day Follow-Up, which need to be redrawn - Communication of the Summary to other parties (in particular the CMHT, the GP and Pharmacy) - Consistency of the Summary with C2, the Care Programme Approach Policy (which policy, I understand, is itself currently under review) - Compliance of the CPA with the Code of Practice (in particular paragraph 34.11 of the Code of Practice) - The appointment, training and supervision of the role of Primary Nurse on the Ward. The jury has found that your Practice’s record keeping was inadequate in 2016, and this was a contributory factor to Patricia Chambers’s death. In evidence, ████████ told the court that the Practice has an “admin team”, that records are computerised, and that communications are now made by email and no longer by fax. However, I remain concerned because ████████ disclosure of records to the inquest was most unsatisfactory. Documents were disclosed in a random, rather than a chronological, order. Important documents were missing from the disclosure, including in particular the Summary referred to above as well as communications to you from the consultant psychiatrist in the community, ████████ I am concerned that these were received but have been lost. Moreover, ████████ was unable to give any satisfactory explanation in evidence for the fact that documents were missing and disordered. I am concerned that the system in place for the collection, recording, saving and dissemination of information within the Practice is unsatisfactory, and that this could lead to information being lost and/or ignored, with a consequent risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. ”

    Source location

    PATRICIA PRISCILLA CHAMBERS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  9. Gloucestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Andrea Franzosi · 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

    Andrea Franzosi, a 52-year-old man, presented to hospital with flu-like symptoms and chest pain, was diagnosed with pleurisy and discharged, and died after collapsing the following day. The report identified concern about the supervision of junior doctors, particularly when patients are discharged without examination by a more senior practitioner.

    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 adequate senior supervision of junior doctors before patient discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The level of supervision of junior Doctors on the ward. In particular, when a patient is discharged without being examined by a more senior practitioner. ”

    Source location

    Andrea Franzosi · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  10. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Annette KRASINSKY-LLOYD · 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

    Annette KRASINSKY-LLOYD died at Royal Surrey County Hospital on 20 April 2016 after an unwitnessed fall caused a pelvic fracture and retro-peritoneal haemorrhage, resulting in hypovolemic shock. The report identified inadequate A&E governance and delays in consultant involvement, investigations, reversal of anticoagulation and blood transfusions, as well as inadequate monitoring that contributed to poor intravenous access.

    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 timely senior supervision in A&E

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It was clear from the evidence that the governance and rapidity of treatment in A&E was inadequate. The SHO who initially provided care to Mrs KRASINSKY-LLOYD was left un-supervised for an extended period resulting in a delay of 90 minutes before the relevant A&E consultant engaged in the care of the patient and appropriate investigations undertaken to establish the nature of the deceased’s condition. ”

    Source location

    Annette KRASINSKY-LLOYD · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026