Recurring concern

Unreliable dissemination of safety alerts to relevant recipients

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 10 Jun 2014•Latest report 17 Feb 2021

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in arrangements for identifying recipients, circulating, transmitting, receiving or confirming receipt of safety alerts about medicines, medical devices or comparable patient-safety risks, including national distribution routes and dissemination to pharmacies, private care providers, inspectors and other responsible functions.

Not included

  • Excludes failures to act on or implement an alert after it has been reliably received; those concern downstream alert response or safety-action implementation.
  • Excludes generic communication, policy dissemination or organisational-learning deficiencies where no safety-alert dissemination process is identified.
  • Excludes the substantive content, accuracy or clinical adequacy of an alert unless the deficiency directly prevents reliable dissemination of the alert.
  • Excludes ordinary clinical record alerts, system-generated warnings and patient-specific flags where the concern is the operation of that separate alerting system rather than dissemination of safety alerts to relevant organisations or functions.
Reports
5

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
5

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2021

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
7

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 Care4
Care Quality Commission3
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency2
NHS England2
Arjo UK Limited1
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy1
Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch1
Homecare Association Limited1
Locala Community Partnerships C.I.C.1
Proprietary Association of Great Britain1
The Royal Society For The Prevention Of Accidents1
Thornton & Ross Limited1

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. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Katie Emma Corrigan · 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

    Katie Emma Corrigan had a history of chronic pain, anxiety and depression, and developed an addiction to pain-relieving medication. She obtained medication from multiple sources, and the report raised concerns that doctors, pharmacists and alert systems did not prevent her from obtaining sufficient opiate medication to cause her 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

    Lack of an effective national procedure for circulating Patient Alerts to pharmacies

    Wider context from the report

    “The GP who gave evidence at the inquest, Dr ████████ from Bodriggy Health Centre in Hayle, stated that she had never been contacted by any other doctor considering the prescription of opiate or other medication to Mrs Corrigan. She was able to procure the medication in sufficient quantities first to require an emergency admission to hospital and latterly to result in her death. Similarly, the registered GP was not contacted by any dispensing pharmacist checking whether the prescription was appropriate. After Dr ████████ became aware of the two on-line pharmacies who had dispensed the medication to Mrs Corrigan that led to her admission into hospital, she attempted to raise an alert through NHS England, in order that the unsuitability of prescribing opiate medication to Mrs Corrigan could be raised with clinicians. This was sent out regionally but Dr ████████ has since been advised there is no formal procedure for circulating Patient Alerts to pharmacies on a national level. I am further given to understand that non NHS contacts would only receive a redacted version of the alert in any event. What seems clear is that the alert proved ineffective in preventing Mrs Corrigan from improperly obtaining sufficient quantities of opiate medication to result in her death. ”

    Source location

    Katie Emma Corrigan · 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

    NHSEI is responsible for systems oversight of controlled-drug management and use, including the alert system’s operation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to the effectiveness of NHS England and NHS Improvement’s (NHSEI’s) alert system in preventing people from obtaining prescription-only medicines improperly, my officials have brought your concerns to the attention of NHSEI.”

    Source location

    2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 February 2021

    Open published response
  2. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Venkata Naga Lakshyasi KAGGA · 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

    Venkata Naga Lakshyasi KAGGA died on 9 July 2017 after a button battery lodged in her oesophagus and caused an oesophageal arterial fistula. Before her death, she was seen by doctors and ambulance staff, but the battery was not identified. Concerns included failures to examine and assess her, non-compliance with ambulance policy for children under five, inadequate information sharing, and limited understanding of the risks posed by button batteries.

    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 sustain and nationally reinforce the button-battery safety alert

    Wider context from the report

    “2. NHS England issued a safety alert across the NHS in December 2014 relating to button batteries. During the inquest it was clear that the impact of that alert had lessened over time across the Trusts involved. The Trusts involved in the inquest had taken steps to highlight and reinforce the safety alert amongst their workforce but no such national work had taken place. ”

    Source location

    Venkata Naga Lakshyasi KAGGA · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. West Yorkshire (West)

    AI-generated summary

    Pauline Taylor · 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

    Pauline Taylor, who was bedbound and living alone, died in her home after a fire developed around her bed on 30 May 2015. The report identified concerns about the fire risks of low-paraffin emollient creams, limited warnings and awareness of those risks, the contribution of the airflow mattress, and the absence of a further risk assessment after her circumstances changed.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide private community-care companies with alerts about relevant medicines and medical devices

    Wider context from the report

    “(5) Private companies who provide carers in the community do not receive alerts with regard to medicines and medical devices which could impact on the risk assessments and the manner in which carers working in the private sector provide care. ”

    Source location

    Pauline Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continue reviewing methods for communicating important healthcare information to healthcare professionals and the public.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “MHRA is continually reviewing methods of communicating important healthcare information to healthcare professionals and members of the public. However, communication to the general public is a challenging area for all aspects of healthcare. The MHRA does publish Medical Device Alerts and Drug Alerts issued via the Central Alerting System (CAS). Within CAS there are thousands of subscribers from organisations in the independent/private sectors, with frequent requests received at the helpdesk to add new subscribers and alter existing records. This is a well-established and effective mechanism for communicating important safety information to healthcare professionals throughout the NHS and private health sectors.”

    Source location

    2017-0330-Response-by-MHRA
    Page 3 · response
    Published 21 July 2017

    Open published response
  4. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Raymond Charles Woodward · 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

    Raymond Charles Woodward suffered a cardiac arrest and died on 19 February 2016 while undergoing a colonoscopy after Buscopan was administered. The report identified concerns that the risk of adverse reactions to Buscopan in patients with coronary artery disease was not widely known and that existing prescribing information did not specifically address ischaemic heart disease.

    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 alert the wider medical community to potential cardiovascular problems with intravenous Buscopan

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) ████████ the Deceased’s Consultant Physician and Gastroenterologist, gave firm evidence, having extensively researched the issue, that the wider medical community needs to be alerted to potential cardiovascular problems in using IV Buscopan and this could be achieved by incorporating into the SPC ‘additional caution should be exercised in administering IV Buscopan to patients with ischaemic heart disease’. ”

    Source location

    Raymond Charles Woodward · 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

    Revise the Buscopan Ampoules Summary of Product Characteristics to strengthen warnings about serious adverse reactions in patients with cardiac disease.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Further to my letter dated 7 December 2016 regarding the inquest into the death of Raymond Charles Woodward, I can confirm that the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) for Buscopan Ampoules has been updated to more clearly communicate and minimise this risk of serious adverse reactions in patients with underlying cardiac disease. Section 4.4 of the SmPC has been revised with the following warning:”

    Source location

    2016-0308-Response-by-Medicines-and-Healthcare-Products-Regulatory-Agency2
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 August 2016

    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

    Communicate the revised Buscopan safety recommendations to healthcare professionals through the MHRA Drug Safety Update newsletter.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have also communicated these new recommendations to healthcare professionals through an article in our MHRA newsletter, Drug Safety Update, which is available at https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update”

    Source location

    2016-0308-Response-by-Medicines-and-Healthcare-Products-Regulatory-Agency2
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 August 2016

    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

    Analyse reported UK deaths suspected to involve Buscopan Ampoules and review the current product information to determine necessary regulatory action.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To determine what regulatory action, if any, is required with respect to Buscopan Ampoules we have analysed all the reported deaths in the UK that were suspected as being caused by Buscopan Ampoules and reviewed the current product information.”

    Source location

    2016-0308-Response-by-Medicines-and-Healthcare-Products-Regulatory-Agency
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 August 2016

    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

    Request the Buscopan Ampoules licence holder to revise product information to clarify cardiac risks and recommend monitoring and readily available emergency equipment and trained personnel.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Given that the risk of serious cardiac side effects due to Buscopan Ampoules is more likely in patients with cardiac conditions, such as coronary heart disease, we agree that the product information should be updated to more clearly communicate and minimise this risk in these patients. We have therefore written to the Company who hold the licence for Buscopan Ampoules and requested that they update the product information accordingly. The Company has agreed to revise the warning in section 4.4 of the SmPC which you highlighted as not adequately describing the risk in patients with coronary heart disease. The warning will recommend caution when using Buscopan Ampoules in patients with cardiac disease, including coronary heart disease, because of the risk of tachycardia, hypotension and anaphylaxis.”

    Source location

    2016-0308-Response-by-Medicines-and-Healthcare-Products-Regulatory-Agency
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 August 2016

    Open published response
  5. South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Miss Lucy Moffatt · 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

    Miss Lucy Moffatt, who was experiencing an acute phase of paranoid schizophrenia, fell or jumped from the second-floor window of her room at a Crisis House in Sheffield after being admitted on 9 July 2013. The report raised concerns that the window restraint could appear secure without being locked, could be defeated with scissors, and was not supported by sufficiently robust monitoring and key-control systems. It also identified concerns about CQC inspectors not being made properly aware of relevant Department of Health guidance and information about the restraint’s limitations.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure that CQC inspectors are properly aware of relevant Department of Health alerts

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) The CQC Inspectors had not apparently been made properly aware of the Dept of Health Alert on a matter that they were expected to check. ”

    Source location

    Miss Lucy Moffatt · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Undertake a detailed review to ensure Regulation 28 reports and other information systematically feed into intelligence monitoring, inspection and registration processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We greatly value the intelligence provided by your report and have endeavoured to address the concerns raised within it. The CQC is currently undertaking a detailed review designed to ensure that the valuable information provided by Regulation 28 reports, as well as from other sources of information, systematically and effectively feeds into our intelligence monitoring, inspection and registration processes.”

    Source location

    2014-0261-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
    Page 9 · response
    Published 10 June 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

    Discussed the report with the CQC and considered how to ensure Safety Alerts reach appropriate teams.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I also note your concerns about communication between the Department of Health and the CQC. Officials at my Department have discussed your report with the CQC and considered how the CQC can ensure that these alerts are reaching the appropriate teams.”

    Source location

    2014-0261-Response-by-Department-of-Health
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 June 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

    Primary responsibility for managing patient safety and implementing safety alerts rests with health and social care providers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In accordance with the evidence that was given at the inquest neither the registration assessor nor the compliance inspector in this case were specifically aware of the Department of Health Alert concerning the strength of window restraints referred to in Health Technical Memorandum (HTM) 55. The reason for this lies in the regulatory framework in which health and social care providers are registered to operate, and in accordance with the current registration and inspection CQC methodology. Under the current statutory and regulatory framework the primary responsibility for managing patient safety, and ensuring that such alerts are actioned, lies with the provider of health and social care providers.”

    Source location

    2014-0261-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
    Page 1 · response
    Published 10 June 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

    Providers, rather than the Department or CQC, are responsible for managing patient safety, actioning alerts, and selecting suitable window restrictors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The CQC have confirmed that neither the registration assessor nor the inspector in this case were specifically aware of the Department of Health alert concerning the strength of window restraints. However, under the current statutory and regulatory framework of the primary responsibility for managing patient safety and ensuring that such alerts are actioned lies with the provider.”

    Source location

    2014-0261-Response-by-Department-of-Health
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 June 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026