Recurring concern
Unreliable intentional-rounding systems
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 29 Aug 2014•Latest report 5 Feb 2026
What this concern includes
Includes failures in intentional-rounding systems, including defining required checks, conducting them at the required frequency, recording or retaining evidence of completion, and assuring through review or audit that rounding is robust and reliable across hospital, care and comparable settings.
Not included
- Excludes generic patient observations, welfare checks or monitoring where intentional rounding is not the identified process.
- Excludes failures in clinical care or escalation after intentional rounding was reliably completed and recorded.
- Excludes generic documentation, staffing, training or audit deficiencies unless they directly impair the intentional-rounding system.
- Excludes other named observation systems, such as ACCT, enhanced care supervision or physiological early-warning systems, unless the assertion explicitly concerns intentional rounding.
- Reports
- 4
- Individual concerns
- 4
- Date range
- 2014–2026
- Stated actions
- 7
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
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.
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.
-
Concerns raised1
Failure of intentional rounding and nursing practices to ensure adequate hydration and nutrition for vulnerable ward patients
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
-
Action
Continue enhanced auditing of appropriate food-chart commencement for three months to assure consistent nutrition monitoring across WTWA hospitals.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust -
Action
Provide additional nutrition and hydration monitoring through quality and safety walk rounds led by nursing directors, with real-time feedback.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust -
Action
Formalise Ward Manager and Matron walkarounds to increase assurance of mealtime preparedness and real-time patient feedback.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
-
Action
Increase the volume and frequency of peer dining audits from March 2026, reporting results through senior nursing and nutrition governance.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The Trust considers its comprehensive care approach, including nutrition and hydration support for vulnerable patients, sufficient to address the concern.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of a robust A&E intentional-rounding system
This report raised 9 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of documentation checks confirming bed brakes are on
This report raised 6 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
-
Action
Update falls documentation and policy to require immediate scene checks, bed-brake and bed-rail checks, falls-risk review, and appropriate care planning during intentional rounding.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust -
Action
Review nursing documentation and its effectiveness in supporting individualized care plans through a Trust Task and Finish Group with academic partners.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The Trust disputes that managers knew the bed brakes were not applied, stating the unwitnessed fall and absent contemporaneous checks prevented that conclusion.
Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to record intentional rounding checks
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Conduct monthly senior nursing audits of medical-record filing, with spot checks of intentional-rounding compliance and correct filing.
Stated by Barts Health NHS Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Intentional rounding occurred despite the missing chart, which resulted from medical notes being filed incorrectly.
Stated by Barts Health NHS Trust
Data last updated 7 September 2026