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

    Mason Logue · 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

    Mason Logue, who had been born prematurely and had a complex medical history, was found unresponsive in his mother’s bed at home on 28 October 2017. The post-mortem examination did not identify a clear cause of death, and the medical cause was recorded as unascertained. Concerns included limited integration and information sharing between services, the absence of an overarching supportive care plan and a single professional coordinating his care, and difficulties arising from differing protocols and the lack of a single IT system across NHS trusts.

    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 an overarching supportive care plan on discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “The inquest heard that Mason was discharged directly from the tertiary centre into the community after a prolonged period of care in NICU. His mother had previously been known to Family Services. There was limited evidence available of an integrated approach to care from the Local Authority, Tertiary Centre, Local Hospital and Community Health Professionals. As a result, information about his health was not shared between all health professionals. There was no overarching supportive care plan in place on discharge. ”

    Source location

    Mason Logue · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. Bedfordshire and Luton

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Matthew Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    Mr Matthew Jones, who had paranoid schizophrenia and polysubstance misuse, was discharged from hospital to minimally supported temporary accommodation and suffered a cardiac arrest shortly afterwards; his death was attributed to cocaine toxicity. The report identified concerns about inadequate training and poor coordinated, multi-agency working, including insufficient attention to housing in hospital discharge planning.

    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 include housing in hospital discharge planning

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence at the Inquest, the evidence revealed: (i) an absence of appropriate training for clinicians and healthcare workers involved in the delivery of mental health services who have responsibility for the care of persons subject to Community Mental Health Treatment Orders (linked to Mental Health Treatment Requirement Care-Plans including treatment by Drug & Alcohol Services); and, as a result, (ii) a poor appreciation, including a lack of co-ordinated and multi-agency working, by such clinicians and healthcare workers of the likely risks of non-compliance with treatment linked to Community Mental Health Treatment Orders, and, particularly, of the importance of ensuring that ‘housing’ is part of any hospital discharge planning. ”

    Source location

    Mr Matthew Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The local NHS is responsible for reviewing the case circumstances and taking necessary action to ensure services are safe and high quality.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Organisations commissioning and delivering services are expected to take the recommendations within NICE clinical guidelines into account when planning and delivering services. We expect the local NHS to look closely at the circumstances of this case and to take action where necessary to ensure services are safe and of high quality.”

    Source location

    2019-0187-Response-by-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 August 2019

    Open published response
  3. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Kevin John McDonald · 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

    Kevin John McDonald was admitted to hospital after a spinal injury, was assessed and discharged with analgesia, apparently without follow-up. He later died by suicide, leaving a note indicating that he could no longer tolerate the pain. Concerns included unclear discharge advice and follow-up arrangements, with the family stating that he was left unsure what to do about his increasing pain and that no relevant hospital documentation had been found.

    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 retain discharge documentation

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) During the inquest the clinician giving evidence indicated that the discharge paperwork from the clinical decision-making unit is different to that from other wards/departments and it is not clear what a follow-up or advice/guidance is given to patients. The family of the deceased contend that there was no advice or follow-up and that the deceased was left not knowing what to do about his increasing pain. It appears that no documentation has been found within the hospital about this The standardisation of discharge documentation would appear to be in need of review and I invite you to consider this. ”

    Source location

    Kevin John McDonald · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  4. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

    AI-generated summary

    Mark Richard HINTON · 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 Richard HINTON attended A&E with right calf pain and swelling after being advised to attend because of a possible clot. He was discharged before a markedly raised D-Dimer result became available; the inquest recorded pulmonary embolus due to deep vein thrombosis and bleeding duodenal ulcer, with a conclusion of “Preventable Natural Cause”. Concerns included failures in recording and communicating the D-Dimer request and result, delayed testing, inadequate documentation, and other system and process 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

    Failure to repeat observations before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) Other matters arising. a) A second set of observations should have been made before Mark was discharged. This did not happen. b) The D-Dimer test result was delayed due to a systems error with the CS2500 machine. It is stated that this may have happened intermittently and is then corrected. Had the system error not occurred it is likely that the (8th) result would have been available on screen for the discharging doctor to review. c) Telephone results are not made if the patient is an in-patient in A&E. The Standing Operation Procedure (SOP) in Pathology states “D-Dimer greater than 500ug/l telephone to GP, out-patients and outlying hospitals (excludes SATH in-patients)”. Is a patient waiting assessment in A&E an out-patient or in-patient or some other category? d) Differential diagnosis. Had all the information to the discharging doctor a differential diagnosis of DVT may have been made and recorded. e) A body map had not been completed at any time. f) Oramorph was recorded as having been given but not checked. Also it may the mask symptoms of pain. g) Whilst D-Dimer tests were becoming routine rather than clinically required, Mark had come in with a possible ‘clot’ whether his earlier symptoms had improved or not. h) The absence of documentation made it difficult if not impossible to resolve factual discrepancies between members of staff. i) The impression given by witnesses was that they were under pressure (racing against the clock) to meet the 4 hour deadline in A&E. ”

    Source location

    Mark Richard HINTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. Inner West London

    AI-generated summary

    Georgia Sylvia Nelson · 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

    Georgia Sylvia Nelson, who had treatment-resistant schizophrenia and severe persistent symptoms, stepped in front of a train at Gloucester Road Underground Station on 11 May 2018 and was killed instantly. The report raised concerns about the lack of suitable long-term and rehabilitation housing for young people with severe mental illness, inadequate discharge planning, and missed opportunities to improve treatment and consider rehabilitation before 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 use inpatient opportunities to address care and treatment needs before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “5. That whilst mental health patients are in hospital all opportunities are used to improve their care and treatment and that where possible, they are not discharged before these have been appropriately addressed, rather than discharging them as soon as they are deemed no longer at active risk to themselves or others. ”

    Source location

    Georgia Sylvia Nelson · 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

    Implement the piloted trauma-informed inpatient care approach across all sites.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To ensure that this is the case we will: - We have successfully piloted a new trauma-informed approach to in-patient care delivery in one of our units and this is being implemented across all sites. This will support the development of a more personalised approach to in-patient care - The Crisis and Home Treatment Teams attending the handover meeting on each ward daily will ensure they are aware of any planned discharges and contribute to discharge planning for all patients on the wards - Every community team has a daily ‘zoning’ meeting and we will ensure that all inpatients are discussed in the relevant team so community teams are aware of all current in-patients and their progress and can contribute meaningfully to the intended aim of the admission - Community team leads will attend the daily bed management meeting huddles where forthcoming discharges are discussed to ensure they are”

    Source location

    2019-0140-Response-by-CNWL-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Ensure community teams discuss all inpatients daily so they know patients’ progress and can contribute to admission goals.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To ensure that this is the case we will: - We have successfully piloted a new trauma-informed approach to in-patient care delivery in one of our units and this is being implemented across all sites. This will support the development of a more personalised approach to in-patient care - The Crisis and Home Treatment Teams attending the handover meeting on each ward daily will ensure they are aware of any planned discharges and contribute to discharge planning for all patients on the wards - Every community team has a daily ‘zoning’ meeting and we will ensure that all inpatients are discussed in the relevant team so community teams are aware of all current in-patients and their progress and can contribute meaningfully to the intended aim of the admission - Community team leads will attend the daily bed management meeting huddles where forthcoming discharges are discussed to ensure they are”

    Source location

    2019-0140-Response-by-CNWL-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Maximise available community support and interventions, including recovery, vocational, employment-support and peer-support services, within discharge planning.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “sighted on these and can support better communication - We have a range of support and interventions for patients outside hospital settings which we will ensure are maximised in the discharge planning process. For example the Recovery College offers a range of person-centred interventions and the Trust has a well-developed Vocational service, offering Employment Support using the Individual Placement and Support Model, a User Employment Programme and a strong programme of Peer Support.”

    Source location

    2019-0140-Response-by-CNWL-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response
  6. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Justin John BROWN · 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

    Justin John Brown was found deceased at his address on 19 February 2016 after police attended following a welfare call. The inquest concluded that he died from ketoacidosis due to diabetes and chronic alcohol abuse, with underlying chronic pancreatitis and bronchopneumonia. A principal concern was that he had been discharged from hospital without confirmed addiction support, and that referral monitoring and communication with the drug service were inadequate.

    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 confirm addiction support at hospital discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “Justin Brown had been discharged from hospital without confirmed support for his addiction between 4 January and his death on 19 February 2016. In light of his history of cooperation with the service the hospital would have been assisted by an agreed protocol and closer working with the commissioned drug service to enable monitoring of referrals sent and outcomes for the service users. ”

    Source location

    Justin John BROWN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Marjorie GARTSIDE · 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

    Marjorie Gartside, aged 100, fractured her hip in an unwitnessed fall at a residential home and underwent surgery. She was discharged from hospital on two occasions, with concerns about inaccurate information regarding her mobility, unsafe discharge processes, lack of care handover and unclear palliative-care arrangements, and anticipatory medication not being sent with her. She died at the Home on 19 October 2018.

    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

    Discharge processes lacking robustness

    Wider context from the report

    “2. That Mrs Gartside’s discharge from the Royal Oldham Hospital on 12 October 2018 appears to have been unsafe and raises a concern about the robustness of discharge processes. ”

    Source location

    Marjorie GARTSIDE · 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

    Complete a Rapid Review to identify lessons from the incident and support their embedding.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A Rapid Review has been completed to ensure all lessons to be learned from this incident have been identified and to ensure the learning can be embedded. In order to address each concern you have raised I have responded to each point below:”

    Source location

    2019-0091-Response-by-Northern-Care-Alliance-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Share the discharge-learning response with relevant teams and staff to reinforce adherence to discharge procedures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I apologise to the family of Mrs Gartside that this fell below the expected standard that I would expect to see and would like to reassure them that in order to ensure learning from experience the Divisional Director of Nursing has shared this with response with all the teams to highlight the importance of adhering to the SOP for discharge. In addition, the Divisional Director of Nursing will also include this on the safety huddle to ensure all ward staff are aware of the learning around this very sad death.”

    Source location

    2019-0091-Response-by-Northern-Care-Alliance-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Include discharge-learning points in the safety huddle so ward staff are aware of them.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I apologise to the family of Mrs Gartside that this fell below the expected standard that I would expect to see and would like to reassure them that in order to ensure learning from experience the Divisional Director of Nursing has shared this with response with all the teams to highlight the importance of adhering to the SOP for discharge. In addition, the Divisional Director of Nursing will also include this on the safety huddle to ensure all ward staff are aware of the learning around this very sad death.”

    Source location

    2019-0091-Response-by-Northern-Care-Alliance-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Re-circulate the discharge Standard Operating Procedure to staff, including staff on the discharge ward.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “On 17 October 2018, Mrs Gartside was prescribed anticipatory medications ‘to take home’ which were dispensed by the pharmacy. She was discharged and arrived back at the home at 3pm. Mrs Gartside did not arrive at the home with the anticipatory medications and unfortunately, her grandson did have to come back to the hospital to collect the anticipatory medication from F9 ward, which is not acceptable. Mrs Gartside should have had her medication sent home with her and in order to ensure that staff members understand the importance of patients getting their medication, the NCME022 Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Standard Operating Procedure for Discharge from Hospital and Supporting Choice has been re-circulated to all staff: including those on the discharge ward.”

    Source location

    2019-0091-Response-by-Northern-Care-Alliance-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    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 was considered safe because equipment was available, observations were stable, and nothing indicated continued hospitalisation was necessary.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “On review I can confirm that Mrs Gartside’s discharge was delayed until the appropriate equipment was available at the Home to ensure that she was safe on her arrival and this was an appropriate measure. On 12 October 2018 (the day of transfer), Mrs Gartside’s observations were checked, which were stable and two blood sugar readings were taken during the morning. Both of these were within normal range. It is documented that Mrs Gartside was provided with breakfast, however took a minimal amount and was discharged prior to lunch being served. All of the above would indicate that Mrs Gartside was safe for discharge and there was nothing that would suggest she needed to be kept in hospital.”

    Source location

    2019-0091-Response-by-Northern-Care-Alliance-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response
  8. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Kathleen McGeary · 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

    Kathleen McGeary died on 6 March 2018 from a head injury sustained in a fall at Tuxford Manor Care Home after her discharge from hospital. Concerns included inadequate assessment and treatment before discharge, unclear responsibility for discharge decisions, inadequate discharge documentation and communication, and her leaving hospital without prescribed antibiotics.

    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 fully and properly assess vulnerable patients before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There was little evidence that Mrs McGeary (who suffered from dementia and was vulnerable) was fully and properly assessed, investigated, diagnosed and treated before discharge. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen McGeary · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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 provide an adequate discharge summary

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The electronic discharge summary was inadequate and no paper discharge summary was produced. No explanation was given for this omission. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen McGeary · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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 fully and properly investigate patients before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There was little evidence that Mrs McGeary (who suffered from dementia and was vulnerable) was fully and properly assessed, investigated, diagnosed and treated before discharge. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen McGeary · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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 provide prescribed antibiotics at discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “4. Mrs McGeary left hospital by hospital arranged transport without the antibiotics she had been prescribed for a suspected UTI. No explanation was given for this failing. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen McGeary · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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 assign clear responsibility for discharge decision making

    Wider context from the report

    “2. No clinician took clear responsibility for discharging decision making. The recording of the identity of the discharging clinician was incorrect and communication between clinicians and nursing staff was unclear. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen McGeary · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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 accurately record the identity of the discharging clinician

    Wider context from the report

    “2. No clinician took clear responsibility for discharging decision making. The recording of the identity of the discharging clinician was incorrect and communication between clinicians and nursing staff was unclear. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen McGeary · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Replace the Symphony-Medisec link with a Medisec Viewer app that launches with Symphony and communicate its required use to all staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I understand that during the inquest it was noted that a review of the past medical history from available hospital electronic notes (Medisec letter) was not undertaken which led to the ED team not being aware of her hyperparathyroidism. I would respond by saying that while, as heard in evidence, the Locum Doctor did not have access to Medisec, the Division have investigated this and found that the link between Symphony the system in ED and Medisec occasionally can be temperamental although all locums are provided with access to the Medisec system. On March 26 the current link button was removed from the Symphony system and replaced by a Medisec Viewer app that boots at the time Symphony is activated and is available for all to view and so far we have not experienced any problems with this following the update.”

    Source location

    2019-0081-Response-by-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Hospital-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Audit 50 CDU discharges over three months to assess whether discharge summaries were documented.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I confirm that all patients are admitted under a named Consultant in ED though the pathway of care would of necessity involve other Consultants as in this case ████████. It will therefore be the case that care may be delivered by an individual other than the named individual on the admission record. We have audited 50 discharges from CDU over the last 3 months and found that in 86% of cases there was evidence of a discharge summary in the electronic notes, either in electronic format or in paper format which was subsequently scanned. We accept that this is clearly below the standard that is required and we have initiated a discharge checklist with immediate effect while the CDU standard operating procedure was being finalised. The discharge checklist is attached.”

    Source location

    2019-0081-Response-by-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Hospital-NHS-Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Introduce a discharge checklist to improve discharge documentation and reduce recurrence of discharge omissions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I confirm that all patients are admitted under a named Consultant in ED though the pathway of care would of necessity involve other Consultants as in this case ████████. It will therefore be the case that care may be delivered by an individual other than the named individual on the admission record. We have audited 50 discharges from CDU over the last 3 months and found that in 86% of cases there was evidence of a discharge summary in the electronic notes, either in electronic format or in paper format which was subsequently scanned. We accept that this is clearly below the standard that is required and we have initiated a discharge checklist with immediate effect while the CDU standard operating procedure was being finalised. The discharge checklist is attached.”

    Source location

    2019-0081-Response-by-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Hospital-NHS-Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continue developing an electronic CDU discharge summary and put it in place within three months.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Division will continue work on an electronic CDU discharge summary to further enhance the discharge process and aims to have this in place within the next 3 months.”

    Source location

    2019-0081-Response-by-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Hospital-NHS-Trust
    Page 6 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement a CDU standard operating procedure defining responsibility across the patient pathway.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have developed a new CDU (Clinical Decision Unit) standard operating procedure, which I attach, where it makes clear where responsibility lies for various aspects of”

    Source location

    2019-0081-Response-by-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Hospital-NHS-Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    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 patient received a thorough, appropriate emergency-department assessment for a condition usually managed in primary care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    ““I have reviewed the available online records for Mrs McGeary. I have not seen the paper notes. From the documentation available she appears to have presented with classical symptoms of lower urinary tract infection associated with delirium. I note a urine dipstick was negative but in the context of symptoms and the fever it will still be reasonable to treat as such as urinary symptoms are more strongly associated with UTI than is a dipstick. There were no features to suggest sepsis and examination from other sources of infection was carried out well. She has a documented normal neurological examination. She was not on any medication that was documented that would increase her risk of falling.”

    Source location

    2019-0081-Response-by-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Hospital-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    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 CDU consultant made the discharge decision and identified the patient as medically fit for discharge, subject to specified conditions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The decision to discharge the patient was made by ████████ CDU Consultant on the ward rounds in the morning who clearly identified that the deceased was medically fit for discharge pending the outcome of the urine dipstick but required a RAPTS assessment. I am led to understand that should the RAPTS team at this stage have had any concerns they would have raised this with staff in ED and not continued with the discharge. I am advised that the team clearly stated that they had no concerns on this occasion. I am also advised by ████████ Patient Safety Lead who attended the Inquest that while the Care Home Manager said that the deceased “looked poorly when she arrived on an ambulance trolley and not in a wheelchair” she was not immediately worried and was happy to accept Mrs McGeary for observation for 24 hours.”

    Source location

    2019-0081-Response-by-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Hospital-NHS-Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    Open published response
  9. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Brenda Kathleen GOWAN · 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

    Brenda Gowan suffered a moderately severe stroke and was discharged home for a trial period despite being assessed as requiring 24-hour supervision and being at risk of falls. Five days after discharge, she fell near her bed in the early hours and sustained catastrophic head injuries, from which she died. Concerns included insufficient care and equipment, inadequate advice and assessment of night-time falls risk, and failure to reconsider the care plan after the family reported that she was getting up frequently at night.

    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 communicate night-time falls risk at discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Brenda was at risk of falling at night. There is no evidence that the risk was fully assessed on discharge from hospital and no evidence of the family being provided with advice on how to manage the risk. ”

    Source location

    Brenda Kathleen GOWAN · 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

    Failure to take family views into account in discharge planning

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Brenda was discharged home, less than 3 weeks after a moderately severe stroke, for a “trial period”. She required 24 hour supervision, but only 4 hours of social care was provided. Her family were expected to provide 20 hours of care. Her family did not consider that adequate steps had been taken to ensure that systems were in place to allow Brenda’s safe return home. The family were concerned about the amount of care support in place; the equipment required and the access to community services. There is no evidence that the family’s views were taken into account by the discharging team. ”

    Source location

    Brenda Kathleen GOWAN · 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

    Lack of a discharge care plan for care provision during the trial period

    Wider context from the report

    “(6) There was no such care plan in place address key aspects such as how care would be provided during the trial period. Such a plan could include the risks identified and how they were to be managed; the equipment required and ensuring that it was provided, installed and those providing the care trained in its use and ensuring that community support is available. Such a plan should be discussed with the community carers (family in this case) and key aspects agreed with them before discharge. ”

    Source location

    Brenda Kathleen GOWAN · 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

    Failure to agree key care-plan aspects with community carers before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “(6) There was no such care plan in place address key aspects such as how care would be provided during the trial period. Such a plan could include the risks identified and how they were to be managed; the equipment required and ensuring that it was provided, installed and those providing the care trained in its use and ensuring that community support is available. Such a plan should be discussed with the community carers (family in this case) and key aspects agreed with them before discharge. ”

    Source location

    Brenda Kathleen GOWAN · 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

    Insufficient care support for a safe discharge home

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Brenda was discharged home, less than 3 weeks after a moderately severe stroke, for a “trial period”. She required 24 hour supervision, but only 4 hours of social care was provided. Her family were expected to provide 20 hours of care. Her family did not consider that adequate steps had been taken to ensure that systems were in place to allow Brenda’s safe return home. The family were concerned about the amount of care support in place; the equipment required and the access to community services. There is no evidence that the family’s views were taken into account by the discharging team. ”

    Source location

    Brenda Kathleen GOWAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Use care-planning documentation to record identified risks, mitigation, equipment, training requirements and available community support.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Care Planning documentation will address the risks identified and how they are to be managed; the equipment required and whether it will be installed prior to discharge; the plan for any required training and detail of the community support available. Where equipment is required as essential for discharge this provision will be in place prior to discharge and checked as part of the discharge checklist. The completion of the Discharge Checklist will be monitored by the Ward Manager to ensure correct completion. Where needs change these will be re-assessed by a senior professional and where risks are identified this could include urgent re-admission to the stroke pathway.”

    Source location

    2019-0064_Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Monitor discharge-checklist completion through Ward Manager oversight.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Care Planning documentation will address the risks identified and how they are to be managed; the equipment required and whether it will be installed prior to discharge; the plan for any required training and detail of the community support available. Where equipment is required as essential for discharge this provision will be in place prior to discharge and checked as part of the discharge checklist. The completion of the Discharge Checklist will be monitored by the Ward Manager to ensure correct completion. Where needs change these will be re-assessed by a senior professional and where risks are identified this could include urgent re-admission to the stroke pathway.”

    Source location

    2019-0064_Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Reassess changed care needs through a senior professional and identify risks requiring further intervention.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Care Planning documentation will address the risks identified and how they are to be managed; the equipment required and whether it will be installed prior to discharge; the plan for any required training and detail of the community support available. Where equipment is required as essential for discharge this provision will be in place prior to discharge and checked as part of the discharge checklist. The completion of the Discharge Checklist will be monitored by the Ward Manager to ensure correct completion. Where needs change these will be re-assessed by a senior professional and where risks are identified this could include urgent re-admission to the stroke pathway.”

    Source location

    2019-0064_Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Include reviewed carer guidelines in discharge information and provide accessible onward-referral and joint-planning contact details.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The current provision of carer guidelines has been reviewed and will be included in the discharge information provided to the patient and family on leaving hospital as part of the discharge checklist. This will ensure that contact details in regards to onward referral and joint health and social care planning are accessible.”

    Source location

    2019-0064_Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Reformat family care-planning documentation to record agreed expectations and actions, with multidisciplinary team involvement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the concerns raised by the family in regards to feeling that they lacked choice and support during the discharge process, there has been a review of the communication and documentation following a Family Care Planning Meeting ensuring that there is signed understanding of the expectations and actions by all parties. This reformatted documentation will support accountability and be uploaded to the electronic notes system and a copy given to the patient and family. This will include all of the MDT (multidisciplinary team) looking after the said patient.”

    Source location

    2019-0064_Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Upload care-planning documentation to electronic notes and provide copies to patients and families.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the concerns raised by the family in regards to feeling that they lacked choice and support during the discharge process, there has been a review of the communication and documentation following a Family Care Planning Meeting ensuring that there is signed understanding of the expectations and actions by all parties. This reformatted documentation will support accountability and be uploaded to the electronic notes system and a copy given to the patient and family. This will include all of the MDT (multidisciplinary team) looking after the said patient.”

    Source location

    2019-0064_Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Require acceptance by an appropriate community team and clear risk mitigation before discharging patients requiring 24-hour supervision.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are however aware that the provision of responsive community care was not readily available for Mrs Gowan due to the limitations in stroke Early Supportive Discharge (ESD) provision at the time for Redbridge residents. Though a service does now exist, in order to ensure the safety of a patient requiring 24 hour supervision, Barts Health would not allow the discharge of such a patient without the acceptance from such a team and clear identification of risk mitigation.”

    Source location

    2019-0064_Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    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

    Responsive community care was unavailable at the time because stroke Early Supportive Discharge provision for Redbridge residents was limited.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are however aware that the provision of responsive community care was not readily available for Mrs Gowan due to the limitations in stroke Early Supportive Discharge (ESD) provision at the time for Redbridge residents. Though a service does now exist, in order to ensure the safety of a patient requiring 24 hour supervision, Barts Health would not allow the discharge of such a patient without the acceptance from such a team and clear identification of risk mitigation.”

    Source location

    2019-0064_Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response
  10. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Kenneth George Alfred WHITTINGTON · 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

    Kenneth George Alfred Whittington died following an operation, but the supplied text does not provide further circumstances of his death beyond referring to the Record of Inquest. The principal concerns included inadequate instructions and handover about management of his urinary catheter after bladder repair, failure to check a disconnected epidural despite increasing pain, incomplete blood transfusion and discharge documentation, and a delay to the initial operation because no Junior Doctor was present.

    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

    Incomplete discharge documentation for handover to doctors

    Wider context from the report

    “(6) Mr. Whittington was due to be discharged on the 4th May. His discharge documentation which acts as a handover for his Doctors was barely completed and this lack of completion is unacceptable. ”

    Source location

    Kenneth George Alfred WHITTINGTON · 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

    Appoint a discharge facilitator and refocus a band 7 nursing role on admissions, discharges and complete discharge-planning documentation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Discharge documentation was poor in Mr Whittington’s records; we have now appointed a discharge facilitator to work with the Level 9A staff and to assist with patient discharges and in turn with the documentation of discharge planning. We have also revised the two band 7 nurse roles on the ward so one of these nurses is in their role will focus on discharges (and admissions) and make sure the discharge planning is on track and the accompanying discharge paperwork is complete. The discharge planner template is being revised to make it clearer and easier to use and record the key information. The documentation audits will review the quality of discharge documentation.”

    Source location

    2019-0049-Response-by-Brighton-and-Sussex-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 24 May 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Revise the discharge-planner template to clarify recording of key information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Discharge documentation was poor in Mr Whittington’s records; we have now appointed a discharge facilitator to work with the Level 9A staff and to assist with patient discharges and in turn with the documentation of discharge planning. We have also revised the two band 7 nurse roles on the ward so one of these nurses is in their role will focus on discharges (and admissions) and make sure the discharge planning is on track and the accompanying discharge paperwork is complete. The discharge planner template is being revised to make it clearer and easier to use and record the key information. The documentation audits will review the quality of discharge documentation.”

    Source location

    2019-0049-Response-by-Brighton-and-Sussex-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 24 May 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Use documentation audits to review discharge-documentation quality.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Discharge documentation was poor in Mr Whittington’s records; we have now appointed a discharge facilitator to work with the Level 9A staff and to assist with patient discharges and in turn with the documentation of discharge planning. We have also revised the two band 7 nurse roles on the ward so one of these nurses is in their role will focus on discharges (and admissions) and make sure the discharge planning is on track and the accompanying discharge paperwork is complete. The discharge planner template is being revised to make it clearer and easier to use and record the key information. The documentation audits will review the quality of discharge documentation.”

    Source location

    2019-0049-Response-by-Brighton-and-Sussex-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 24 May 2019

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026