Recurring concern

Unsafe medication prescribing

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 5 May 2013•Latest report 25 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures involving the clinical appropriateness of prescribing or medication selection, including inadequate assessment of indication, patient circumstances, relevant information, alternatives or dose.

Not included

  • Excludes failures limited to medication administration after an otherwise appropriate prescription.
  • Excludes generic documentation, training or communication deficiencies unless they directly result in or are explicitly tied to an unsafe prescribing decision.
  • Excludes dispensing, supply or monitoring failures that do not concern whether the medication prescription itself was clinically appropriate.
Reports
121

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
151

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
246

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 Care20
NHS England16
Care Quality Commission7
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board7
General Medical Council6
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence4
Recipient name withheld4
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency3
NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board3
Royal College of General Practitioners3
Royal College of Physicians3
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust3
Welsh Government3
BNF Publications2
Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Local Health Board2

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. Exeter and Greater Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Judith Anne SAVILLE · 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

    Judith Anne Saville, who had a long history of agitated depression and previous psychiatric admissions and ECT treatment, was found deceased at home on 28 January 2014. The inquest concluded that she died from a Zopiclone and Paracetamol overdose and that she had taken her own life. Concerns included the quantity of medication prescribed, the need for warnings about a history of overdose in the practice’s computer system, and implementation and auditing of an action plan.

    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 limit medication supplies for patients with a history of prescribed-medication overdose

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) For the attention of ████████ In his evidence ████████ told the Court that Mrs Saville’s death had been reviewed at a significant events meeting in his practice. I was told that it was felt he had prescribed too much medication, particularly as the person who had a past medical history that included overdoses of prescribed medication. ████████ said that there was now an increased awareness on the Practitioners not to prescribe so much medication in similar circumstances. He felt that a supply of no more than a week’s worth of medication would be appropriate. ████████ said that the system could be made more robust by introducing a warning on the firm’s computer system. This would assist Practitioners by drawing to their attention a past medical history of overdose. It was felt that this may particularly be of benefit to locum doctors who would not necessarily have the same recall of a patient as a partner in the practice. ”

    Source location

    Judith Anne SAVILLE · 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 practice does not agree that too many zopiclone pills were prescribed, as no single prescription exceeded one month’s supply.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the situation in which normally we prescribe Zopiclone, short courses of limited numbers of pills are advisable and our computer system automatically offers us this choice with a label which advises against repeat or regular use. There will inevitably be some patients for whom it has been decided that a regular prescription of one months supply is appropriate. In Mrs Saville’s particular circumstance we would not necessarily agree that ████████ prescribed too many zopiclone pills, although we sympathise with his comments. Viewing her prescribing records it appears that she was not prescribed on any single occasion more than a months supply at the dose ████████ had decided on. We would certainly all agree that in cases where there is a heightened risk of suicide we would endeavour to restrict all supplies of potentially toxic medication of any type.”

    Source location

    2015-0011-Response-by-Axminster-Medical-Practice
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 January 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing computer prescribing prompts and pharmacist or dispenser alerts are considered sufficient safeguards for zopiclone prescribing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the situation in which normally we prescribe Zopiclone, short courses of limited numbers of pills are advisable and our computer system automatically offers us this choice with a label which advises against repeat or regular use. There will inevitably be some patients for whom it has been decided that a regular prescription of one months supply is appropriate. In Mrs Saville’s particular circumstance we would not necessarily agree that ████████ prescribed too many zopiclone pills, although we sympathise with his comments. Viewing her prescribing records it appears that she was not prescribed on any single occasion more than a months supply at the dose ████████ had decided on. We would certainly all agree that in cases where there is a heightened risk of suicide we would endeavour to restrict all supplies of potentially toxic medication of any type.”

    Source location

    2015-0011-Response-by-Axminster-Medical-Practice
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 January 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Restricting prescriptions cannot prevent patients from stockpiling regular medication or accessing other toxic medicines, including over-the-counter drugs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our local pharmacists and dispensers do also flag to us when patients appear to be receiving medications earlier than would be expected. As you will understand however, restricting prescribed medications would not prevent patients who have chosen to “stockpile” regular medications from holding large numbers of any pill which we prescribe regularly. There are many medications which are much more toxic than zopiclone and of course many over the counter medications which would also be toxic in overdose.”

    Source location

    2015-0011-Response-by-Axminster-Medical-Practice
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 January 2015

    Open published response
  2. Gateshead and South Tyneside

    AI-generated summary

    EDWIN THOMPSON · 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

    Edwin Thompson, a 77-year-old residential care home resident with dementia, was found dead in a bathroom on 8 October 2011. The post-mortem identified a previously undiagnosed cardiovascular disease as the natural cause of death. The report identified concerns about protective measures for a vulnerable resident, delayed medical assistance, loss of contact with a resident prone to wandering, response to a final medical crisis, staff training, and record keeping.

    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

    Unauthorised medication or prescription of ineffective remedies by non-medically qualified care staff

    Wider context from the report

    “There is a need to draft and disseminate to all care staff a clear, simple and concise directive to care home staff to seek medical advice or assistance in respect of residents presenting with pain, particularly of a cardiac nature without delay. Staff with no medical qualification must not seek to speculate as to possible causes of symptoms and should not seek to medicate ( unless otherwise previously prescribed by a Medical Practitioner) or prescribe “remedies” of no or no known worth to anyone in their care. ”

    Source location

    EDWIN THOMPSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Patricia Edge · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    Patricia Edge died at Royal Bolton Hospital on 20 July 2014 after bowel cancer, bowel obstruction and ischaemic bowel, with paracetamol liver toxicity also identified in the inquest conclusion. An excessive dose of paracetamol was prescribed and dispensed between 14 and 19 July 2014, and the report raised concerns about prescribing and dispensing procedures, review of the dose, and the absence of blood tests.

    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 staff training and Trust procedures to prevent prescribing and dispensing excessive paracetamol doses

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The circumstances – including training of staff and Trust procedures - in which a patient could be prescribed and dispensed an excessive dose of paracetamol on the 14ᵗʰ July 2014. ”

    Source location

    Patricia Edge · 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

    Review and revise paracetamol prescribing practice to require regular monitoring by the responsible clinical team.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Medical Devices Committee and the Medications Safety Group have worked closely to address these issues and the process for prescribing Paracetamol has been thoroughly reviewed. As a result the Trust has now revised its practice and this improvement will ensure that where patients are prescribed Paracetamol there will be regular monitoring by the clinical team responsible for the patient.”

    Source location

    2014-0531-Response-by-Bolton-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 10 December 2014

    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

    Distribute the SBAR safety communication to medical staff, wards and services using paracetamol, including through staff newsletters and bulletins.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The attached SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations) slide details the seven actions taken by the Trust and addresses the three concerns that you have raised. An SBAR is a quality improvement tool which has been adopted by the Trust and is being used as a mechanism to communicate critical information to relevant staff and foster a culture of patient safety.”

    Source location

    2014-0531-Response-by-Bolton-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 December 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Amend the Medicines Management e-learning module to reflect the improved paracetamol prescribing process and circulate the message continually to clinical staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition, the Medicines Management e-learning module has been amended to reflect the improved process and ensure the message is continually circulated to clinical staff.”

    Source location

    2014-0531-Response-by-Bolton-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 December 2014

    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

    All reasonably practicable steps have been taken to improve paracetamol prescribing and address the identified concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are confident that the Trust has taken all reasonably practicable steps to improve the system of prescribing of Paracetamol in order to address your concerns and I do hope that my response has provided you with the assurance that you and the family are looking for. If you need any further information, or if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.”

    Source location

    2014-0531-Response-by-Bolton-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 December 2014

    Open published response
  4. Bedfordshire and Luton

    AI-generated summary

    James Duncan STEWART · 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 Duncan STEWART, a resident of Manton Heights Nursing Home, was admitted to hospital with decreased mobility and responsiveness after his Parkinson’s medication had apparently not been provided. He was discharged to Airedale Nursing Home for end-of-life care and died on 21 April 2014. The principal concerns were the absence of a system to check medication details with a previous GP practice and uncertainty about responsibility for confirming the correct medication prescription.

    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 the General Practitioner to confirm the correct medication rather than relying on nursing-home staff

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There did not appear to be any system whereby when a new GP Practice is requested to prescribe medication from a patient’s Nursing Home the details are not checked with the previous Practice. Such a system would have highlighted the fact that Mr. Stewart’s Co-Careldopa medication had not been included. (2) It was felt by those giving evidence from the GP Practice, and from the two Nursing Homes, that the correct medication to be prescribed should be a matter for the General Practitioner to confirm rather than relying upon qualified staff from the Home. They also felt that the Clinical Commissioning Group were the obvious body to ensure that a robust and consistent system is put in place. ”

    Source location

    James Duncan STEWART · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop and consult stakeholders on a medication-reconciliation protocol for transfers into care homes and registration with a new GP.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the meantime, in liaison with GP colleagues, Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group have developed a protocol for reconciliation of medications when people are transferred into care homes and are registered with a new GP. The protocol is under consultation with stakeholders in primary and social care. This will also be shared with the commissioners of General Practitioners, NHS England Area Team, for them to consider whether contractual actions can be taken to strengthen compliance with the protocol. An action plan has been written to drive this work forward and progress will be monitored by our Patient Safety and Quality Committee.”

    Source location

    2014-0526-Response-by-Bedfordshire-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 December 2014

    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 medication-reconciliation protocol with GP commissioners and NHS England’s Area Team for consideration of contractual compliance measures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the meantime, in liaison with GP colleagues, Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group have developed a protocol for reconciliation of medications when people are transferred into care homes and are registered with a new GP. The protocol is under consultation with stakeholders in primary and social care. This will also be shared with the commissioners of General Practitioners, NHS England Area Team, for them to consider whether contractual actions can be taken to strengthen compliance with the protocol. An action plan has been written to drive this work forward and progress will be monitored by our Patient Safety and Quality Committee.”

    Source location

    2014-0526-Response-by-Bedfordshire-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 December 2014

    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

    Write an action plan to drive the medication-reconciliation work forward and monitor its progress through the Patient Safety and Quality Committee.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the meantime, in liaison with GP colleagues, Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group have developed a protocol for reconciliation of medications when people are transferred into care homes and are registered with a new GP. The protocol is under consultation with stakeholders in primary and social care. This will also be shared with the commissioners of General Practitioners, NHS England Area Team, for them to consider whether contractual actions can be taken to strengthen compliance with the protocol. An action plan has been written to drive this work forward and progress will be monitored by our Patient Safety and Quality Committee.”

    Source location

    2014-0526-Response-by-Bedfordshire-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 December 2014

    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

    Prescribing GPs are responsible for ensuring medication meets patients’ clinical needs, rather than relying on non-clinical care-home staff to identify errors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(2) It is agreed by our GP members that it is the responsibility of the prescribing GP that the correct medication is prescribed to meet the clinical needs of the person and it should not be dependent upon non-clinical staff in Care Homes to challenge the accuracy of this process.”

    Source location

    2014-0526-Response-by-Bedfordshire-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 December 2014

    Open published response
  5. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Philip Allen · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    Philip Allen, who had vascular dementia, was transferred from The Oaks Care Centre to QEH in September 2012 following a deterioration in his condition and died there. The concern was that Quetiapine continued to be prescribed as a repeat prescription after specialist advice to discontinue it, because the surgery’s system did not prevent this; the inquest evidence was that the further prescriptions did not contribute to his 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 of the repeat-prescribing system to prevent prescriptions of discontinued medication

    Wider context from the report

    “████████ as Mr Allen’s GP, sought specialist advice from ████████. Not only was this advice not followed but the Quetiapine, which ████████ had stopped, continued to be prescribed as a repeat prescription on several occasions. The evidence at the inquest was that the further prescriptions of Quetiapine did not contribute to the death. However, I am concerned that the system at Eltham Palace Surgery did not prevent the repeat prescription. ████████ was unable to say if changes have been made since this incident. ”

    Source location

    Philip Allen · 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

    Carry out quarterly medication reviews through the CCG Prescribing Advisor.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a practice we have made several changes to our policy in dealing with the care of clients at the Oaks Nursing Home:-”

    Source location

    2014-0466-Response-by-Eltham-Palace-Surgery
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 October 2014

    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

    Carry out twice-yearly medication reviews using the practice computer records and electronic prescribing system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a practice we have made several changes to our policy in dealing with the care of clients at the Oaks Nursing Home:-”

    Source location

    2014-0466-Response-by-Eltham-Palace-Surgery
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 October 2014

    Open published response
  6. Blackpool and the Fylde

    AI-generated summary

    Stephen James Morris · 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

    Stephen James Morris, who had previously been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder, was found deceased in the bath at his flat on the morning after 16 June 2013. A post-mortem found high levels of mood-stabilising and antidepressant medication, whose combined effects proved fatal; the inquest concluded that he took his own life. The principal concerns were that Mirtazapine was prescribed despite awareness of his diagnosis and its suitability concerns, based on the patient's verbal account rather than confirmation from the mental health team.

    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

    Prescribing medication that is not preferred for a known mental-health condition without discussion with the responsible mental-health care team

    Wider context from the report

    “Having concluded this inquest, I now write to you to confirm that in my view you should take action because: • I am concerned that medication was prescribed to a Patient you knew had previously been referred to the local hospital Trust in respect of his mental health and the diagnosis that had been made. • That you prescribed the medication on the basis of verbal information provided by the Patient rather than seeking some confirmation from those within the Hospital Trust with responsibility for the Patient's mental health care provision. • That knowing the diagnosis, you prescribed medication you acknowledged was not the preferred medication for this Patient's condition and seemingly in the absence of discussion with those who had responsibility for the Patient’s mental health care. I would therefore be obliged if the Trust would write to me in due course to confirm what steps if any you propose to take to address these concerns. ”

    Source location

    Stephen James Morris · 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 confirm mental-health treatment information with the responsible hospital care team before prescribing medication

    Wider context from the report

    “Having concluded this inquest, I now write to you to confirm that in my view you should take action because: • I am concerned that medication was prescribed to a Patient you knew had previously been referred to the local hospital Trust in respect of his mental health and the diagnosis that had been made. • That you prescribed the medication on the basis of verbal information provided by the Patient rather than seeking some confirmation from those within the Hospital Trust with responsibility for the Patient's mental health care provision. • That knowing the diagnosis, you prescribed medication you acknowledged was not the preferred medication for this Patient's condition and seemingly in the absence of discussion with those who had responsibility for the Patient’s mental health care. I would therefore be obliged if the Trust would write to me in due course to confirm what steps if any you propose to take to address these concerns. ”

    Source location

    Stephen James Morris · 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

    Request written confirmation from the Consultant Psychiatrist or Community Nurse Practitioner for future prescription changes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This is incorrect. It is clear from the GP records and ████████ evidence that following his consultation, he telephoned ████████ office and verified the position as to the recommendations made by the Community Nurse Practitioner. ████████ however confirms that it is his standard practice to verify information from the patients as to medication changes and he did so in this case by telephoning ████████ office. From an administration perspective, ████████ will ensure that he in future requests that the Consultant Psychiatrist or Community Nurse Practitioner confirm any change of prescription in writing. Given that the patient was deemed to require that medication, it would have been inappropriate for ████████ to have deferred issuing the prescription pending the receipt of written confirmation.”

    Source location

    2014-0522-Response-by-MDU-Services-Limited
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 November 2014

    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

    Prescribing medication after hospital mental-health referral was conventional within multidisciplinary care and was not inherently concerning.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The nature of the concern expressed in this point is unclear. Given the multi-disciplinary approach of medical care within the NHS, it is entirely conventional for GP to prescribe medication in line with recommendations from other medical practitioners from the Hospital Trust or from tertiary services.”

    Source location

    2014-0522-Response-by-MDU-Services-Limited
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 November 2014

    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 prescription was not based solely on verbal patient information; the relevant hospital office was contacted to verify recommendations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This is incorrect. It is clear from the GP records and ████████ evidence that following his consultation, he telephoned ████████ office and verified the position as to the recommendations made by the Community Nurse Practitioner. ████████ however confirms that it is his standard practice to verify information from the patients as to medication changes and he did so in this case by telephoning ████████ office. From an administration perspective, ████████ will ensure that he in future requests that the Consultant Psychiatrist or Community Nurse Practitioner confirm any change of prescription in writing. Given that the patient was deemed to require that medication, it would have been inappropriate for ████████ to have deferred issuing the prescription pending the receipt of written confirmation.”

    Source location

    2014-0522-Response-by-MDU-Services-Limited
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 November 2014

    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

    Using the existing medication was not shown to be unsafe: it had been tolerated previously and the subsequent psychiatrist did not change it.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Within the GP records, there is a letter dated 17th June 2013 from the deceased’s Psychiatrist, (copy enclosed) which confirms that he was aware of the medication that the deceased was taking as at 4th June 2013, the date of their consultation. Under “Current medication”, he lists “Mirtazapine 45mg od” and also “Lithium 1200mg daily”. He states in his letter “I have not made any changes to his current medication as he tells me that he is happy with this although the treatment regime he is on isn’t ideal for a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, i.e. The anti-depressant. Ideally, I would like to see Steven for a longer appointment to be able to take detailed history...we will try to arrange that for the future.””

    Source location

    2014-0522-Response-by-MDU-Services-Limited
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 November 2014

    Open published response
  7. Central and South East Kent

    AI-generated summary

    Herbert Chandler · 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

    Herbert Chandler was admitted to William Harvey Hospital with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a left pneumothorax. On 22 January 2013, an attempt to aspirate the left pneumothorax mistakenly aspirated the right lung first, after which the left lung was aspirated and he died soon afterwards. The concerns included the conservative management of the pneumothorax, medication prescribing, failures in clinical review and communication, the aspiration procedure, medical record format, and respiratory consultant cover.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inappropriate prescribing of gentamicin and aminophylline

    Wider context from the report

    “A series of failings by the Trust have caused or contributed to the cause of death, namely:- • A conservative approach to managing the left pneumothorax with antibiotics, • Inappropriate prescribing of medication, namely gentamicin and aminophylline, • A failure to put in a chest drain when the patient was reviewed on 22nd January by a Consultant Respiratory Physician, • A failure to communicate findings after a Consultant’s review on 22nd January to the medical on-call team, • The Medical Registrar’s failure to request a chest x ray before attempting the aspiration procedure given that more than 48 hours had elapsed since the previous x ray, • The Medical Registrar’s failure to check the radiology immediately prior to aspirating the right lung, The Medical Registrar’s failure to examine Mr Chandler immediately prior to aspirating the right lung to confirm her findings concurred with the radiology, • A confusing format of medical records which prevented sequential recording of entries by health care professionals, • A failure to provide Consultant on call respiratory cover. ”

    Source location

    Herbert Chandler · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. Exeter and Greater Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew john Hooper · 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

    Andrew John Hooper died after taking methadone prescribed to his girlfriend, with the stated cause of death being respiratory failure, hypoxic brain injury and methadone toxicity. The concerns were that the medication was not secured, was available in a quantity sufficient for a fatal dose, and that the person prescribed it appeared unaware of the risks to others and unable to keep it safe.

    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

    Prescribing medication in quantities sufficient for a fatal dose

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The medication was not secured, and was prescribed in sufficient quantity for a fatal dose to be taken by a user un-used to this medication. (bottle 420ml) (2) the person to whom was prescribed appeared to be unaware of the dangers of this medication, when taken by another in large quantities. (3) Consideration should be given to the appropriateness of prescribing to an individual who is not able or prepared to keep the medication safe and secure, or is not aware of the dangers of ingestion, (deliberate or otherwise), for others. If this means daily prescription, the balance of inconvenience versus the safety of others should be carefully weighed on an individual basis, and evidence recorded in this regard. ”

    Source location

    Andrew john Hooper · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  9. Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

    AI-generated summary

    Kathleen Cornthwaite · 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 Cornthwaite, aged 76, was an inpatient at Pendle Community Hospital when her tramadol prescription was increased after a fall causing a rib injury. The inquest concluded that she died of cardiorespiratory failure due to combined tramadol and fluoxetine toxicity. Concerns included the imprecise tramadol dose recorded, failure to account for her age, size and frailty, and failure to consider interactions with other prescribed medicines.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a system to ensure consideration of other prescribed medicines when prescribing tramadol

    Wider context from the report

    “3. There was no system in place such that the doctor would appreciate the fact that in prescribing tramadol he or she ought to have had regard to other medicines being prescribed particularly in this case fluoxetine. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen Cornthwaite · 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 of prescribers to apply the maximum tramadol dose for people over 75

    Wider context from the report

    “2. That the doctor prescribing was not aware of the maximum dose of tramadol for somebody over 75 years of age and failed to take into account her size and frailty. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen Cornthwaite · 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 of prescribers to take patient size and frailty into account

    Wider context from the report

    “2. That the doctor prescribing was not aware of the maximum dose of tramadol for somebody over 75 years of age and failed to take into account her size and frailty. ”

    Source location

    Kathleen Cornthwaite · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  10. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Gary Bradshaw · 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

    Gary Bradshaw attended hospital with groin pain and kidney stones, later developed hyperparathyroidism and died during a hospital admission. The report identified concerns including delays and errors in diagnosis and testing, prescribing bendroflumethiazide before blood-test results, discharge before full investigation, inadequate escalation and fluid monitoring, and incomplete clinical records.

    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

    Prescribing and administering Bendroflumethiazide before blood test results were known

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The above blood tests were ordered but the patient was prescribed and administered Bendroflumethiazide before the results were known, something which the expert witness described as contra-indicated.(Stockport NHS Trust and The Secretary of State) ”

    Source location

    Gary Bradshaw · 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

    Enable clinicians to electronically check all outpatient tests ordered in their name.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. The above blood tests were ordered but the patient was prescribed and administered Bendroflumathiazide before the results were known, something which the expert witness described as contraindicated ████████ accepted at inquest that it should not have prescribed Bendroflumathiazide without knowing the serum calcium results and will not do so in the future. He had expected to review the results within a week and review his decision but unfortunately that did not happen as he expected.”

    Source location

    2014-0232-Response-2
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 May 2014

    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 cross-disciplinary prescribing-alert capabilities in discussions of requirements with advanced electronic patient-record suppliers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “11. I was told that a new electronic system of note keeping is being introduced at Stockport and throughout the NHS. I would consider it helpful if the system had a built in flag which highlighted to a doctor that he or she was prescribing drugs before the requested blood/urine test result had been received. Electronic records have moved on considerably since 2011 for example we now have Advantis ED (The Emergency Department electronic record), EPMA (Electronic prescribing and recording of medication administration) and Advantis Ward (ward electronic records in its pilot stage). It is however not possible at present to create a flag or a rule for the circumstance as described i.e. across disciplines (Laboratory/Medication Administration). It is unlikely to be possible in the vast majority, if not all Trusts in the UK.”

    Source location

    2014-0232-Response-2
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 May 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    No Summary Care Record flag for prescribing before test results is planned; the matter is left to doctors’ clinical and professional judgement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regard to the third concern above, I assume you are referring to the Summary Care Record (SCR). I can confirm that flag system functionality is not within existing requirements for the SCR system nor are there any current plans for SCRs or SCR systems to introduce “an in-built ‘flag’ which would highlight to a doctor that he or she was prescribing drugs before the requested blood/urine test results had been received. This is a matter best left to the clinical and professional judgement of the doctor involved, with first-hand knowledge of the patient’s circumstances.”

    Source location

    2014-0232-Response-by-Department-of-Health
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 May 2014

    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 cross-disciplinary electronic alert for prescribing before test results are available cannot currently be created and is unlikely across most UK trusts.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “11. I was told that a new electronic system of note keeping is being introduced at Stockport and throughout the NHS. I would consider it helpful if the system had a built in flag which highlighted to a doctor that he or she was prescribing drugs before the requested blood/urine test result had been received. Electronic records have moved on considerably since 2011 for example we now have Advantis ED (The Emergency Department electronic record), EPMA (Electronic prescribing and recording of medication administration) and Advantis Ward (ward electronic records in its pilot stage). It is however not possible at present to create a flag or a rule for the circumstance as described i.e. across disciplines (Laboratory/Medication Administration). It is unlikely to be possible in the vast majority, if not all Trusts in the UK.”

    Source location

    2014-0232-Response-2
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 May 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026