Recurring concern

Unreliable hospital discharge processes

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 30 Jan 2013•Latest report 10 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in hospital discharge planning, readiness decisions, multidisciplinary or receiving-service coordination, safety planning, execution and directly required follow-up.

Not included

  • Inter-hospital patient transfer where no discharge from hospital care occurs
  • Failures in treatment after a safe and complete discharge
  • Generic care coordination unrelated to a hospital discharge process
  • Delays in admission or movement within hospital before discharge is being planned
Reports
273

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
406

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
524

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 Care48
NHS England20
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust9
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust8
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust8
Barts Health NHS Trust7
Care Quality Commission7
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust7
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board6
Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust6
Betsi Cadwaladr University LHB5
Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS Trust5
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust5
Royal London Hospital5
Stockport NHS Foundation Trust5

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Judith Marsland · 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. Marsland died in hospital on 14 November 2025 after a urinary infection progressed to sepsis, septic shock and multiorgan failure. The principal concerns were that abnormal blood results were not reviewed or escalated, she was discharged without antibiotics, and key action-plan measures for structured handover and named clinical responsibility had not been implemented.

    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 make safe discharge decisions based on clinical findings

    Wider context from the report

    “3) I heard evidence from ████████, the lead investigator from the Trust PSII that Mrs. Marsland’s deterioration and death followed an error in not escalating the abnormal blood results that were available for clinical review during her admission to Tameside Hospital on 7ᵗʰ November 2025. The PSII concluded that all blood results should have been reviewed and acted upon by the clinical teams that saw Mrs. Marsland and that she should not have been discharged home. ”

    Source location

    Judith Marsland · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. Nottingham and Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    David MARRIOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    David Marriott died at City Hospital, Nottingham, on 18 July 2025 from metastatic lung cancer diagnosed in May 2025. The report identified missed opportunities to arrange a follow-up chest x-ray after his February 2024 Emergency Department visit, including failures to follow guidance and to review radiology reports received after discharge. It also raised concerns about inadequate discharge summaries, lack of quality assurance, and failure to provide summaries to patients.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays or failures in delivery of ED discharge summaries

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Poor quality discharge summaries, a failure to have in place a system for quality assurance, and a failure to share summaries with patients I heard evidence of a continuing concern amongst the primary care profession that ED discharge summaries often are not worth the (electronic) paper they are written on. Often, they contain inadequate or insufficient information, like the one in this case which did not make clear the steps required of the GP. Occasionally, discharge summaries do not arrive, or there can be a delay in receiving such. I understand the Trust does not have a quality assurance audit for discharge summaries so there is no data to underpin identification of issues and learning. I am further concerned that ED discharge summaries are not supplied to patients. If the patient is expected to act as a safeguard in proactively managing their care, they need to have the plan in writing. Placing an expectation on unwell patients to remember and recite the verbal plan for follow-up to their GP many weeks later is unrealistic. Again, ED seems to be an outlier in this regard as inpatients always receive a copy of their discharge summary and plan. The same occurs for outpatient appointments when the Consultant letter is copied to both the GP and the patient. The witnesses before me were unclear on whether ED discharge summaries appeared in the NHS patient app. Perhaps this could be clarified? ”

    Source location

    David MARRIOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · 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 supply ED discharge summaries to patients

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Poor quality discharge summaries, a failure to have in place a system for quality assurance, and a failure to share summaries with patients I heard evidence of a continuing concern amongst the primary care profession that ED discharge summaries often are not worth the (electronic) paper they are written on. Often, they contain inadequate or insufficient information, like the one in this case which did not make clear the steps required of the GP. Occasionally, discharge summaries do not arrive, or there can be a delay in receiving such. I understand the Trust does not have a quality assurance audit for discharge summaries so there is no data to underpin identification of issues and learning. I am further concerned that ED discharge summaries are not supplied to patients. If the patient is expected to act as a safeguard in proactively managing their care, they need to have the plan in writing. Placing an expectation on unwell patients to remember and recite the verbal plan for follow-up to their GP many weeks later is unrealistic. Again, ED seems to be an outlier in this regard as inpatients always receive a copy of their discharge summary and plan. The same occurs for outpatient appointments when the Consultant letter is copied to both the GP and the patient. The witnesses before me were unclear on whether ED discharge summaries appeared in the NHS patient app. Perhaps this could be clarified? ”

    Source location

    David MARRIOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 5 · 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

    Inadequate information in ED discharge summaries

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Poor quality discharge summaries, a failure to have in place a system for quality assurance, and a failure to share summaries with patients I heard evidence of a continuing concern amongst the primary care profession that ED discharge summaries often are not worth the (electronic) paper they are written on. Often, they contain inadequate or insufficient information, like the one in this case which did not make clear the steps required of the GP. Occasionally, discharge summaries do not arrive, or there can be a delay in receiving such. I understand the Trust does not have a quality assurance audit for discharge summaries so there is no data to underpin identification of issues and learning. I am further concerned that ED discharge summaries are not supplied to patients. If the patient is expected to act as a safeguard in proactively managing their care, they need to have the plan in writing. Placing an expectation on unwell patients to remember and recite the verbal plan for follow-up to their GP many weeks later is unrealistic. Again, ED seems to be an outlier in this regard as inpatients always receive a copy of their discharge summary and plan. The same occurs for outpatient appointments when the Consultant letter is copied to both the GP and the patient. The witnesses before me were unclear on whether ED discharge summaries appeared in the NHS patient app. Perhaps this could be clarified? ”

    Source location

    David MARRIOTT · 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

    Develop and publish a patient information leaflet explaining pneumonia follow-up requirements and their importance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Discharge Summary The ED respiratory speciality interface collaborative team are designing a patient information leaflet to be given to those patients being discharged with pneumonia, based on BTS guidance. This will include patient information about the need to see the GP at 6 weeks for follow-up and why this matters. This leaflet will be completed in Draft Format by end of August 2026 and is expected for publication by October 2026 and can be shared if required.”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    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

    Complete pharmacy feedback and update the agreed ED discharge-letter template to improve medicines documentation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the interim, the Trust has already taken feedback and held discussions with GP colleagues to establish the preferred content of e-posted letters for patients discharged from the Emergency Department back to their care, leading to an agreed template. ED colleagues are completing pharmacy team feedback regarding discharged medication documentation to update the agreed template for improved medicines safety and this is expected to be completed by July 2026. Nevercentre will then require system updates to include a full clinician summary of attendance which will auto generated for those patients discharged directly from ED (as clinically appropriate).”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement system updates to auto-generate a full clinician summary for appropriate patients discharged directly from ED.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the interim, the Trust has already taken feedback and held discussions with GP colleagues to establish the preferred content of e-posted letters for patients discharged from the Emergency Department back to their care, leading to an agreed template. ED colleagues are completing pharmacy team feedback regarding discharged medication documentation to update the agreed template for improved medicines safety and this is expected to be completed by July 2026. Nevercentre will then require system updates to include a full clinician summary of attendance which will auto generated for those patients discharged directly from ED (as clinically appropriate).”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    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

    Provide medical-documentation training, including discharge-summary requirements, through Foundation Doctor induction and Resident Doctor teaching.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Education on Medical Documentation The Trust now provides training on medical documentation as a fixed session in the annual Foundation Doctor Induction and in Resident Doctor teaching, including discharge summaries (applicable Trustwide, not just ED). The materials will be further reviewed and updated prior to the October 2026 delivery in response to this case and will emphasise the importance of robust follow up arrangements and what can reasonably be delivered by community colleagues and what needs to be delivered by NUH (current materials provided in Appendix 7). The Acute Deterioration Improvement Team will also provide an NUH intranet page with the resources.”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review and update medical-documentation training materials to emphasise robust follow-up arrangements before October 2026 delivery.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Education on Medical Documentation The Trust now provides training on medical documentation as a fixed session in the annual Foundation Doctor Induction and in Resident Doctor teaching, including discharge summaries (applicable Trustwide, not just ED). The materials will be further reviewed and updated prior to the October 2026 delivery in response to this case and will emphasise the importance of robust follow up arrangements and what can reasonably be delivered by community colleagues and what needs to be delivered by NUH (current materials provided in Appendix 7). The Acute Deterioration Improvement Team will also provide an NUH intranet page with the resources.”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    Open published response
  3. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Abbigail Louise SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Abbigail Louise Smith was found at Braintree Recreation Ground on 15 February 2022 and was pronounced deceased shortly after midnight on 16 February 2022 from compression of the neck by ligature. The report describes concerns about failures in mental-health care, communication, staff training, risk assessment and discharge planning, including her discharge to supported living without an adequate plan to mitigate a known risk of self-harm.

    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 resolve unmet discharge conditions and escalated self-harm concerns before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “11. On 9 February 2022 community mental health staff required 3 conditions to be met before they would support Abbi’s discharge, none of which were met on 14 February 2022. Abbi’s was a very complex patient and her care co-ordinator wanted to attend Abbi’s ward review on 14 February and emailed the consultant psychiatrist that she had not received a link. The ward review went ahead in absence of the care co-ordinator and concerns that the care co-ordinator had about Abbi’s risks of her harming herself and ending her life on the discharge were escalated. The plan did not change. ”

    Source location

    Abbigail Louise SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · 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 verify service acceptance and agree an appropriate discharge care plan

    Wider context from the report

    “12. Abbi had anti-ligature bedding, and her room stripped of her possessions, and this remained in place at the time of her discharge. The responsible clinician was informed by a preceptorship nurse that the Home Treatment Team had refused to accept Abbi as she had a care co-ordinator. This information was known by the treating team to be incorrect, the Home Treatment team had agreed to see Abbi on 25 January 2022, and other patients had been assessed and discharged from the Ward with these arrangements previously. This was not checked or challenged, and Abbi was discharged without further discussion with professionals about an appropriate care plan. ”

    Source location

    Abbigail Louise SMITH · 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

    Recruit a Community and Inpatient Liaison Practitioner CPN to coordinate inpatient communication and safer discharge planning.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The GabIes Specialist Mental Health Team (SMHT) have recruited a new post, a Community and Inpatient Liaison Practitioner Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN). This role is intended to work directly with inpatient services.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
    Page 7 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    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

    Hold weekly ward discharge-planning meetings with key care workers and community leads, documenting complex-discharge actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Discharge Planning meetings occur throughout the patient’s admission, this ensures constant focus on how to support someone through to discharge and provides enhanced opportunities for MDT in-put.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
    Page 9 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    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 Home First Home Team staff attend inpatient MDT meetings and ward reviews to coordinate discharge interventions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A weekly discharge planning meeting is held on each ward with all key care workers and community leads present to highlight any complex discharges. This is documented within the action plan. Meetings may still proceed without a member of the community team being present. All members of the team have access to the records / MDT notes relating to planned discharges. All MDT’s and ward reviews have a member of staff from the Home First Home Team in attendance.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
    Page 9 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    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

    Discharge to community mental health services was considered appropriate and proportionate based on multidisciplinary risk assessment and the patient’s clinical presentation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Abbi was reviewed by the Care Coordinator on the day following discharge. The contemporaneous clinical records indicate that the Care Coordinator assessed Abbi’s presentation and concluded that ongoing follow-up by the Community Mental Health Team was appropriate and that the Home Treatment Team involvement was not warranted at that stage. The risks identified at the time were recognised by both inpatient and community teams as longstanding and chronic in nature.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
    Page 9 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    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

    Discharge planning meetings may proceed without a community team member because records and multidisciplinary notes remain accessible to all relevant staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Discharge Planning meetings occur throughout the patient’s admission, this ensures constant focus on how to support someone through to discharge and provides enhanced opportunities for MDT in-put.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
    Page 9 · response
    Published 13 August 2026

    Open published response
  4. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Abigail Louise SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Abigail Louise Smith was found at Braintree Recreation Ground on 15 February 2022 after unsuccessfully trying to suspend herself, and was pronounced dead at 00:08 on 16 February 2022 from compression of the neck. The report describes concerns about failures in mental-health care, including inaccurate records and diagnosis information, inadequate adjustments for autism and learning difficulties, medication-management problems, and discharge from detention without an effective plan to mitigate a known and immediate risk of suicide.

    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 accurately record changes in mental health diagnosis in discharge summaries

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Abbi spent most of her adult life detained and over 18 months in a specialist Tier 4 mental hospital having been transferred there by her local mental health trust. The Tier 4 specialist team agreed that Abbi did not have a personality disorder. This was a significant change for Abbi and was not accurately set out in the discharge summary. ”

    Source location

    Abigail Louise SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. Cumbria

    AI-generated summary

    James Patrick · 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

    James Stewart, aged 52, died on 27 December 2024 after leaving hospital during alcohol withdrawal and placing a ligature around his neck at a nearby hotel, sustaining catastrophic injuries. The report describes concerns that he was discharged prematurely, without reassessment by the Psychiatric Liaison Team or intervention when safety concerns were raised, and that Flow Coordinators might not receive information about patient vulnerabilities when arranging discharge.

    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 Flow Coordinators with information about patient vulnerabilities when arranging discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) I heard evidence from a Flow Coordinator who was responsible for taking the practical steps to arrange a patient's discharge after the treating clinicians had determined that the patient was medically fit. I understand that the Flow Coordinator is to make the necessary logistical arrangements for discharge, not to decide whether discharge is appropriate. However, the evidence was that the Flow Coordinator would not necessarily be briefed on any particular vulnerabilities that a patient had. For instance, in this instance Mr Stewart had made repeated threats to harm himself, including on the railway, which the Flow Coordinator did not know of. She considered making arrangements for him to travel home by train, which might have been especially risky. Whilst these matters did not eventuate in this inquest, I consider that not giving Flow Coordinators information about patient vulnerability risks them making unsuitable arrangements. ”

    Source location

    James Patrick · 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

    Review the Band 4 Flow Coordinator role and associated discharge processes, including responsibilities, risk-information flow, escalation and multidisciplinary clinical leadership.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. Flow Coordinator Role and Discharge Processes”

    Source location

    Response from North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 April 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement clinical-risk information sharing during discharge coordination and multidisciplinary discharge processes, including updated documentation and mental-health referral prompts.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1 | Implement process for sharing clinical risk information during discharge coordination and ensure MDT-led discharge for all patients. This includes mental health services. | Collaborative Lead Nurse Emergency Care | 31/08/2026 | Update discharge documentation to include: - Mental health section. Has the patient had any involvement in mental health services during their admission or inpatient stay. - If patient has been involved in mental health services – consider a referral to PLT prior to discharge. | Emergency Care Collaborative Workforce Group”

    Source location

    Response from North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 29 April 2026

    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

    Contemporaneous staff accounts did not indicate that explicit hanging suicide intent was escalated immediately before discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For completeness, I would note that the Trust’s learning response completed in January 2025 was based on the contemporaneous evidence available at the time, including accounts from staff directly involved in Mr Stewart’s care. These accounts did not indicate that an explicit expression of intent to end his life by hanging had been escalated immediately prior to discharge. Notwithstanding this, I acknowledge your careful consideration of the evidence and accept the seriousness of your findings. The Trust has undertaken extensive reflection on the circumstances of Mr Stewart’s care, and is fully committed to ensuring that the learning identified is embedded into clinical practice and operational delivery.”

    Source location

    Response from North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 29 April 2026

    Open published response
  6. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Mark Robert Smith · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Mark Robert Smith, who was detained at HMP Thameside, died after an epileptic seizure led to cardiac arrest. The report describes concerns about medication prescribing and administration, hospital-to-prison discharge and communication, access to his cell, observation arrangements and records, staffing, and the lack of equipment for resuscitation.

    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 coordinate prison discharge through an MDT and relevant prison healthcare liaison

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) I remain concerned a similar situation could arise as did in Mark’s case regarding a discharge back to prison from QEH without an MDT meeting despite repeated requests from prison healthcare and there could be a risk to life. I note PFD evidence provided regarding improved liaison between QEH and the prison GP but note no reference to liaison between QEH and the head of the healthcare in prison, who visited QEH twice in Mark’s case. Further, as recently as 2025 an incident occurred when there was a lack of understanding at QEH around the limited provision in healthcare in prison. I am concerned as to how awareness of the limits of prison healthcare will be disseminated on a continuing basis to new and locum staff at QEH. (QEH and Practice Plus Group) ”

    Source location

    Mark Robert Smith · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    David ABBOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    David ABBOTT underwent surgery at West Suffolk Hospital on 25 October 2023 and was discharged the following day with advice that he interpreted as meaning he should not mobilise. He remained immobile for four days, subsequently developed deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and died in cardiac arrest at home on 29 November 2023. Concerns included potentially incorrect discharge advice, inadequate recording of important advice, and ineffective communication between hospital staff, patients and families.

    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 recording of important discharge advice

    Wider context from the report

    “West Suffolk Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Evidence received from Mr. ABBOTT’s Family at the Inquest was that advice provided to Mr. ABBOTT by a medical registrar at West Suffolk Hospital at the time of his discharge on the 26th October 2023 was not weight bear and not be mobile. This is corroborated in the medical records where the relevant entry reads: ‘avoid weight bearing’. In addition no advice was given in relation to the use of anti-embolism (TED) stockings. At Inquest, the clear evidence was that unless a medical rationale existed to the contrary, this advice was wrong. No medical rationale for the advice was recorded in Mr. ABBOTT’s hospital notes, or in his discharge documentation. A possible explanation was offered that the registrar may have confused advice to ‘avoid heavy lifting’ with ‘avoid weight bearing’. These are two very different forms of advice, the latter leaving Mr. ABBOTT with the clear and not unreasonable impression that he was not to mobilise and avoid weight bearing following the procedure. He followed this advice until the 30th October 2023 when he attended a follow up outpatients clinic. Instead he should have mobilised and whilst not carrying heavy objects, otherwise carried on with his usual activity as far as possible. By not mobilising and resting for this 4 day period, Mr. ABBOTT was more susceptible to contracting a DVT. This subsequently occurred and although it is not possible to establish precisely when the DVT/s formed, a period of 4 days of immobility immediately post operation will have likely contributed to him developing DVT in his lower legs. I am concerned that one or both of the following has occurred: a. The wrong advice has been provided to a patient on discharge which has exposed them to increased risk, and /or b. Inadequate record keeping has resulted in inaccurate records being maintained in relation to important advice provided to patients on discharge. If this is the scenario, there would appear to be no assurance mechanism in place to identify and remedy any error. I am further concerned that the communication processes at West Suffolk Hospital between patients and hospital staff (including treating clinicians) are ineffective in affording patients and their families with adequate opportunity to engage with and inform clinical decisions around their care and treatment. ”

    Source location

    David ABBOTT · 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

    Absence of an assurance mechanism to identify and remedy discharge advice errors

    Wider context from the report

    “West Suffolk Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Evidence received from Mr. ABBOTT’s Family at the Inquest was that advice provided to Mr. ABBOTT by a medical registrar at West Suffolk Hospital at the time of his discharge on the 26th October 2023 was not weight bear and not be mobile. This is corroborated in the medical records where the relevant entry reads: ‘avoid weight bearing’. In addition no advice was given in relation to the use of anti-embolism (TED) stockings. At Inquest, the clear evidence was that unless a medical rationale existed to the contrary, this advice was wrong. No medical rationale for the advice was recorded in Mr. ABBOTT’s hospital notes, or in his discharge documentation. A possible explanation was offered that the registrar may have confused advice to ‘avoid heavy lifting’ with ‘avoid weight bearing’. These are two very different forms of advice, the latter leaving Mr. ABBOTT with the clear and not unreasonable impression that he was not to mobilise and avoid weight bearing following the procedure. He followed this advice until the 30th October 2023 when he attended a follow up outpatients clinic. Instead he should have mobilised and whilst not carrying heavy objects, otherwise carried on with his usual activity as far as possible. By not mobilising and resting for this 4 day period, Mr. ABBOTT was more susceptible to contracting a DVT. This subsequently occurred and although it is not possible to establish precisely when the DVT/s formed, a period of 4 days of immobility immediately post operation will have likely contributed to him developing DVT in his lower legs. I am concerned that one or both of the following has occurred: a. The wrong advice has been provided to a patient on discharge which has exposed them to increased risk, and /or b. Inadequate record keeping has resulted in inaccurate records being maintained in relation to important advice provided to patients on discharge. If this is the scenario, there would appear to be no assurance mechanism in place to identify and remedy any error. I am further concerned that the communication processes at West Suffolk Hospital between patients and hospital staff (including treating clinicians) are ineffective in affording patients and their families with adequate opportunity to engage with and inform clinical decisions around their care and treatment. ”

    Source location

    David ABBOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · 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

    Provision of wrong advice to patients on discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “West Suffolk Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Evidence received from Mr. ABBOTT’s Family at the Inquest was that advice provided to Mr. ABBOTT by a medical registrar at West Suffolk Hospital at the time of his discharge on the 26th October 2023 was not weight bear and not be mobile. This is corroborated in the medical records where the relevant entry reads: ‘avoid weight bearing’. In addition no advice was given in relation to the use of anti-embolism (TED) stockings. At Inquest, the clear evidence was that unless a medical rationale existed to the contrary, this advice was wrong. No medical rationale for the advice was recorded in Mr. ABBOTT’s hospital notes, or in his discharge documentation. A possible explanation was offered that the registrar may have confused advice to ‘avoid heavy lifting’ with ‘avoid weight bearing’. These are two very different forms of advice, the latter leaving Mr. ABBOTT with the clear and not unreasonable impression that he was not to mobilise and avoid weight bearing following the procedure. He followed this advice until the 30th October 2023 when he attended a follow up outpatients clinic. Instead he should have mobilised and whilst not carrying heavy objects, otherwise carried on with his usual activity as far as possible. By not mobilising and resting for this 4 day period, Mr. ABBOTT was more susceptible to contracting a DVT. This subsequently occurred and although it is not possible to establish precisely when the DVT/s formed, a period of 4 days of immobility immediately post operation will have likely contributed to him developing DVT in his lower legs. I am concerned that one or both of the following has occurred: a. The wrong advice has been provided to a patient on discharge which has exposed them to increased risk, and /or b. Inadequate record keeping has resulted in inaccurate records being maintained in relation to important advice provided to patients on discharge. If this is the scenario, there would appear to be no assurance mechanism in place to identify and remedy any error. I am further concerned that the communication processes at West Suffolk Hospital between patients and hospital staff (including treating clinicians) are ineffective in affording patients and their families with adequate opportunity to engage with and inform clinical decisions around their care and treatment. ”

    Source location

    David ABBOTT · 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

    Use a standardised discharge-summary process with pre-approved #tag advice to reduce variation and inaccurate instructions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since 2024, a standardised discharge summary process has been implemented within the Trust. This utilises #tag functionality, allowing clinicians to insert pre-approved, standardised advice directly into discharge documentation.”

    Source location

    Response from West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 April 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Train junior doctors during induction to use standardised discharge-summary #tags.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Junior doctors receive training on the use of #tags during their induction, ensuring early awareness and consistent application in clinical practice.”

    Source location

    Response from West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 April 2026

    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

    Assign consultants ownership of discharge processes and require checking and challenging draft discharge letters.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To address this, consultants have been requested to take ownership of the discharge process and provide check and challenge where appropriate of draft discharge letters.”

    Source location

    Response from West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 April 2026

    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

    Rectify digital barriers and implement digital enablers for producing discharge letters.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This incident has reinforced the importance of clear verbal and written communication at discharge. Improving the quality of discharge letters has been a project over the last 18 months led by the Associate Medical Director ████████. This has focused on initially identifying the barriers and the work to address them.”

    Source location

    Response from West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 April 2026

    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

    Monitor discharge-letter compliance through Clinical Directors and Clinical Leads and discuss the data in governance meetings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The digital team have now rectified the digital barriers and have tried to implement the enablers. We have also put in place methods to ensure compliance can be monitored by Clinical Directors and Clinical Leads. It is advised that this data should be discussed at departmental and divisional governance meetings.”

    Source location

    Response from West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 April 2026

    Open published response
  8. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Lesley Marie Krommendijk · 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

    Lesley Marie Krommendijk fell at home, fractured her right hip, and was discharged home on 5 June 2025. She was later found on the floor, admitted to hospital with confusion and abnormal clinical findings, and died on 20 June 2025. The principal concern was that discharge-assessment processes may have created an unrealistic impression of her mobility, leading to an unsafe discharge.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of discharge-safety assessment processes to accurately assess patient mobility

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The current processes for assessing whether or not it is safe to discharge a patient appear to have led to an unrealistic impression of the patient’s mobility. ”

    Source location

    Lesley Marie Krommendijk · 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

    There was no discrepancy between the discharge referral information and the patient’s function at discharge, so mobility was not unrealistically represented.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Mrs Krommendijk was discharged from Ward D5 as planned into her son’s care. At the time of discharge there was no discrepancy between the information within the referral to D2A and her function at the time.”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    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 discharge planning, equipment provision and continuing mobility reviews were considered appropriate and sufficient under usual practice.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following a full review of Mrs Krommendijk’s documentation whilst in hospital, during the discharge planning process and following her return to home, her mobility and function was continually reviewed as would be expected with appropriate equipment in place. Though Mrs Krommendijk declined physically following her discharge from hospital, the Divisional team believes her discharge was appropriately planned for and completed within our usual expectations. The D2A and ICAH team communicated with Mrs Krommendijk’s GP throughout this period, ensuring that she had timely interventions as required.”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    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 discharge information accurately reflected the patient’s function, and the discharge was appropriately planned within usual expectations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Mrs Krommendijk was discharged from Ward D5 as planned into her son’s care. At the time of discharge there was no discrepancy between the information within the referral to D2A and her function at the time.”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response
  9. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Susan Elizabeth SAMSON · 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

    Susan Elizabeth SAMSON died on 7 May 2025 after falling down the stairs at her home, following discharge from a rehabilitation placement. The principal concern was that patients may be discharged before they can consistently use stairs without assistance, potentially resulting in a death.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure patients can consistently complete a flight of stairs without assistance before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “The Occupational Therapist involved in the deceased's discharge on 1 May 2025 gave evidence that for someone to be assessed as safe to use the stairs on their own, it was not sufficient for them to have managed to complete a set of stairs without assistance on one occasion; it was necessary for the person to demonstrate that they could consistently complete the stairs without assistance. The Occupational Therapist stated that the two successful attempts in the Care Home seemed to be enough to achieve consistency and indicated that if similar circumstances arose today the patient would still be discharged home at the end of the six-week rehabilitation period. I found as a fact that prior to the deceased's discharge on 1 May 2025 the deceased had not demonstrated that she was able to consistently complete a flight of stairs without assistance. I am concerned by the evidence that if similar circumstances arose today the patient would still be discharged. I am concerned that there may be occasions in the future that patients will be discharged before they are able to consistently complete a flight of stairs and that, as a result, a death may occur. ”

    Source location

    Susan Elizabeth SAMSON · 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

    Deliver SOAP note training to Community Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy and Assistant staff within six weeks, and remaining Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy staff within four months.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The documentation relating to the stair attempts undertaken prior to discharge from the intermediate care setting does not clearly confirm that the patient completed the stairs without assistance and lacks sufficient objective assessment and clinical analysis. The Trust requires the use of the recognised SOAP note structure (Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan) when recording assessments, which was completed, however the use of the term supervision should have been more clearly defined.”

    Source location

    Response from County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    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

    Repeating stair assessments is not always necessary where a patient previously completed one safely and has no additional risk factors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is not always necessary to repeat a stair assessment. The decision should be guided by the clinician’s professional judgement and the patient’s individual risk profile. If a patient has previously completed a stair assessment safely and no additional risk factors are present, repetition is unlikely to be required. However, for individuals with identified risk such as a history of falls, reduced strength or balance, or frailty, repeating the assessment can provide valuable reassurance by demonstrating consistency and safety over time.”

    Source location

    Response from County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response
  10. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Brigitte Dominique FAVRE · 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

    Brigitte Dominique FAVRE, who had small cell leukaemia and was receiving chemotherapy, was discharged on 25 January 2025, readmitted the following day after her condition deteriorated, and died on 30 January 2025 from neutropenic sepsis following chemotherapy. Concerns were raised about the lack of oncology input for weekend and out-of-hours discharge planning and about emergency department record management, which meant recent chemotherapy and the need for support medication were not identified promptly.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure that oncology discharge criteria are known and followed

    Wider context from the report

    “The Inquest heard evidence that at the time of Ms. FAVRE’s discharge on the 25th January 2025, no oncology input was available on weekends or out of hours to inform discharge decision making. Criteria had been set by the treating Consultant Oncologist, however the evidence received at Inquest suggested that this was neither known nor followed in relation to Ms. FAVRE’s discharge. I found as a fact that the discharge of Ms FAVRE on the 25th January 2025 was a failed discharge although it was not possible to establish whether the failed discharge made a contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death. Upon readmission to West Suffolk Hospital on 26th January 2025, poor records management meant that the emergency department staff at West Suffolk Hospital did not identify that Ms. FAVRE had recently received chemotherapy treatment and as a result chemotherapy support medication was not administered. Although this made no contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death, I am concerned that in the case of other patients such a failure may have a different adverse outcome. I therefore have two concerns: 1. The provision of on-call oncology support over weekends and out of hours to inform discharge planning and assist in reducing the incidence of failed discharge amongst cancer patients. 2. The record management in the emergency department, including the ability of emergency department staff to interrogate West Suffolk Hospital records in a timely and consistent manner in order to inform clinical decision making concerning patients who have either recently been discharged or are receiving ongoing outpatient care. ”

    Source location

    Brigitte Dominique FAVRE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · 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

    Unavailability of on-call oncology support for cancer patient discharge planning during weekends and out of hours

    Wider context from the report

    “The Inquest heard evidence that at the time of Ms. FAVRE’s discharge on the 25th January 2025, no oncology input was available on weekends or out of hours to inform discharge decision making. Criteria had been set by the treating Consultant Oncologist, however the evidence received at Inquest suggested that this was neither known nor followed in relation to Ms. FAVRE’s discharge. I found as a fact that the discharge of Ms FAVRE on the 25th January 2025 was a failed discharge although it was not possible to establish whether the failed discharge made a contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death. Upon readmission to West Suffolk Hospital on 26th January 2025, poor records management meant that the emergency department staff at West Suffolk Hospital did not identify that Ms. FAVRE had recently received chemotherapy treatment and as a result chemotherapy support medication was not administered. Although this made no contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death, I am concerned that in the case of other patients such a failure may have a different adverse outcome. I therefore have two concerns: 1. The provision of on-call oncology support over weekends and out of hours to inform discharge planning and assist in reducing the incidence of failed discharge amongst cancer patients. 2. The record management in the emergency department, including the ability of emergency department staff to interrogate West Suffolk Hospital records in a timely and consistent manner in order to inform clinical decision making concerning patients who have either recently been discharged or are receiving ongoing outpatient care. ”

    Source location

    Brigitte Dominique FAVRE · 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 targeted communication with ward teams reinforcing oncology advice and safe discharge requirements for complex out-of-hours and weekend discharges.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Despite the system being in place for many years, it is clear WSFT need to raise awareness of the process when dealing with complex discharges and seeking out of hours specialist advice. Therefore, the following action is being taken: -”

    Source location

    Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 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

    A formal out-of-hours consultant oncology service cannot be provided because additional consultant capacity and resources are unavailable.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Clarification of Out-of-Hours Oncology Support The Trust would like to clarify that an out-of-hours oncology telephone advice service is available via a Service Level Agreement with Cambridge University Hospitals (CUH). This has been in existence for over 20 years and provides consultant-level oncology advice. The service is accessed through the Trust’s switchboard. The senior clinician requests to be connected to the doctor on-call for Oncology and the switchboard then make contact with CUH. WSFT is not able to offer a formal out of hours Consultant oncology service, as that would mean increasing the consultant body and resources are not available to achieve this. However, in addition to the formal arrangements, informally all WSFT Oncology consultants are happy to be contacted at any time should advice be required.”

    Source location

    Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 December 2025

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026