Recurring concern

Failure to provide effective senior clinical oversight of patient care

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 23 Aug 2013•Latest report 10 Mar 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of senior clinical oversight of patient care, including absent or delayed senior input at presentation, early or daily senior review, review of patients referred for advice, and ongoing senior clinical direction or challenge where senior involvement is required for safe care.

Not included

  • Excludes generic organisational, corporate or regulatory oversight where senior clinical oversight of patient care is not the unsafe condition.
  • Excludes senior review of incident investigations, documentation quality, policies or safety governance unless the assertion directly concerns oversight of a patient's clinical care.
  • Excludes failures of junior staff competence, staffing capacity or clinical treatment where senior clinical oversight is not itself deficient.
  • Excludes delays or failures in specialist review where the concern is access to a named specialty rather than the broader senior clinical oversight of patient care.
Reports
59

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
64

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
63

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.

University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust7
Department of Health and Social Care4
NHS England4
Royal Sussex County Hospital4
Care Quality Commission3
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust3
Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2
Medway NHS Foundation Trust2
Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust2
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence2
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust2
Recipient name withheld2
Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2
Aneurin Bevan University LHB1
Ashford and St Peter'S Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1

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. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Jacob · 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

    Jacob died at eleven months from acute pyelonephritis, following earlier urinary tract sepsis and severe obstruction of both ureters. Investigations identifying the obstruction were not reviewed during his life, and the seriousness of a later infection was not recognised. The report identified concerns including low compliance with paediatric sepsis screening, lack of consultant review before discharge, and inadequate systems for reviewing investigation results.

    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 named or responsible consultant review before child discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “2. Lack of Named/Responsible Consultant review prior to a child’s discharge ”

    Source location

    Jacob · 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 weekly assurance audits of clinical records across acute areas, covering sepsis assessment and related discharge and communication safeguards.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• In addition to the audit process, the Divisional Director of Nursing for Children & Neonates and the Matron for Children’s Services have developed an assurance tool, which is being completed weekly for a period of 12 weeks, auditing approximately 5 sets of clinical records every week from each acute area. Unlike the sepsis audit the assurance tool is not exclusive to patients with a clinical diagnosis of sepsis. The tool is designed to monitor the following which were areas of concern noted at the inquest:”

    Source location

    2021-0259-Response-from-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 3 · response
    Published 3 August 2021

    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

    Consultant handovers, case discussion and retrospective attendance-note review provide sufficient safeguards for children discharged without admission.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All admitted paediatric patients are discussed with the consultant on service at each morning and evening handover as a routine practice across both sites, therefore, all admitted children are reviewed regularly by a Consultant during their admission. Patients referred that are deemed not to require admission following assessment by the ST4-8 Junior Doctor may be discussed with/reviewed by the Consultant of the week”

    Source location

    2021-0259-Response-from-Doncaster-and-Bassetlaw-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 5 · response
    Published 3 August 2021

    Open published response
  2. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Mrs Ruby Baggaley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    Mrs Ruby Baggaley, aged 90, sustained a right distal femur fracture in a fall and died in hospital on the night of 24 January 2020 after complex surgery. Her blood pressure remained abnormally low after surgery, but escalation to senior clinicians was delayed until she was critically ill. Concerns included inadequate monitoring and failure to escalate her deteriorating condition, as well as uncertainty about whether clear escalation instructions and additional staff training had been implemented.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to escalate deteriorating postoperative patients to senior clinicians

    Wider context from the report

    “In the period from 17:00 hours onwards her care was exclusively in the hands of a relatively junior doctor (CT2) and the nursing staff. No attempt was made to inform the surgeons or anaesthetist of the deterioration in her condition. 3) Between 16:00 hours and 20:45 hours Mrs Baggaley’s NEWS Score was 5 and remained at this level. No attempt was made to escalate her care to more senior clinicians. It is not clear whether junior doctors and nursing staff now have clear instructions on when to escalate care in such circumstances, nor to whom. 4) By the time the surgeon was informed of the situation and travelled into the hospital around 22:00 hrs Mrs Baggaley’s condition had become critical. It is not clear whether earlier intervention by senior clinicians would have avoided Mrs Baggaley suffering a cardiac arrest consequent upon her low blood pressure (as the Inquest was informed was the case). It is quite clear, however, that she was deprived of the opportunity to have a review by a senior clinician. 5) I am concerned that in the absence of precise information as to what, if any changes in escalation procedures have been implemented, or additional training provided to the staff involved, the potential for a comparable situation to occur again, remains. ”

    Source location

    Mrs Ruby Baggaley · 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

    Require the consultant anaesthetist to define postoperative care and NEWS thresholds for escalation to critical care outreach.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “On the day of surgery, the consultant anaesthetist will have the responsibility to clearly define the patient’s post-operative care, including NEWS scores that will require escalation to critical care outreach team for support out of hours.”

    Source location

    2021-0044-Response-from-St-Jamess-University-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 February 2021

    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 defined daytime and out-of-hours escalation using consultant contacts, NEWS2 and applicable deteriorating-patient and transfer policies.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “During daytime working hours (08.00 -18.00) any concerns will be escalated to the consultant surgeon and anaesthetist responsible for the patient’s care. After 18.00 hours the escalation policy will be based upon clear objective assessments of the patient’s physiological status using the NEWS2 score and the Trust’s ‘Deteriorating Patient Policy’ and the ‘Transfer of Care Policy for Chapel Allerton Orthopaedic Centre’. A separate policy is being developed to specifically address the deteriorating patient being cared for in peripheral hospital sites. Plans are on-going to establish a dedicated on-call consultant rota for Chapel Allerton Hospital but in the meantime, the duty consultants at the LGI site will be available to provide advice and if necessary, review the patient.”

    Source location

    2021-0044-Response-from-St-Jamess-University-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 February 2021

    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

    Develop a dedicated policy for deteriorating patients cared for at peripheral hospital sites.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “During daytime working hours (08.00 -18.00) any concerns will be escalated to the consultant surgeon and anaesthetist responsible for the patient’s care. After 18.00 hours the escalation policy will be based upon clear objective assessments of the patient’s physiological status using the NEWS2 score and the Trust’s ‘Deteriorating Patient Policy’ and the ‘Transfer of Care Policy for Chapel Allerton Orthopaedic Centre’. A separate policy is being developed to specifically address the deteriorating patient being cared for in peripheral hospital sites. Plans are on-going to establish a dedicated on-call consultant rota for Chapel Allerton Hospital but in the meantime, the duty consultants at the LGI site will be available to provide advice and if necessary, review the patient.”

    Source location

    2021-0044-Response-from-St-Jamess-University-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 February 2021

    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

    Establish a dedicated on-call consultant rota for Chapel Allerton Hospital.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “During daytime working hours (08.00 -18.00) any concerns will be escalated to the consultant surgeon and anaesthetist responsible for the patient’s care. After 18.00 hours the escalation policy will be based upon clear objective assessments of the patient’s physiological status using the NEWS2 score and the Trust’s ‘Deteriorating Patient Policy’ and the ‘Transfer of Care Policy for Chapel Allerton Orthopaedic Centre’. A separate policy is being developed to specifically address the deteriorating patient being cared for in peripheral hospital sites. Plans are on-going to establish a dedicated on-call consultant rota for Chapel Allerton Hospital but in the meantime, the duty consultants at the LGI site will be available to provide advice and if necessary, review the patient.”

    Source location

    2021-0044-Response-from-St-Jamess-University-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 February 2021

    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

    Extend on-site anaesthetic and recovery-unit cover until 21:00.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition, contact details for the operating surgeon and anaesthetist will be available to the ward staff if required. Plans are in place to extend the anaesthetic and recovery unit cover on site until 21.00. This will facilitate the post-operative reviews and management of higher risk patients. Where possible, higher risk patients will be operated on early in the day to allow an extended period of observation before the treating surgeon and anaesthetist leave the site. In addition, every effort will be made to ensure high risk patients are not operated on at the end of the working week (i.e. on Friday).”

    Source location

    2021-0044-Response-from-St-Jamess-University-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 February 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide rolling staff education and mandatory escalation-pathway and resuscitation training, recording junior doctors’ training on Electronic Staff Records.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is recognised that a rolling programme of staff education will be required to support the implementation of these planned changes. All staff in both the operating theatres and surgical wards will have regular training on escalation pathways and resuscitation. There will be compulsory mandatory training for the junior doctors starting their post at Chapel Allerton Hospital. This will be recorded on the Electronic Staff Records.”

    Source location

    2021-0044-Response-from-St-Jamess-University-Hospital-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 February 2021

    Open published response
  3. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Marian DAY · 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

    Marian Day died at Kings Mill Hospital on 18 November 2019 after a sudden collapse caused by a massive intra-abdominal haemorrhage. Warfarin was continued and administered despite suspected bleeding and an earlier plan to withhold it; the inquest found that this prescription error made a contribution to the haemorrhage. The report raises concerns about muddled prescribing systems, insufficient senior review, and unclear anticoagulant management plans.

    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 senior review of patients for anticoagulant management

    Wider context from the report

    “Whilst there has been a detailed Serious Incident review of the circumstances of Mrs Day’s death conducted by the Trust, it remains unclear as to how and why these prescription errors occurred. It is my view that a similar prescription error could occur again, as there remains a number of different charts and documents that allow for muddled prescribing of, or omission of, anticoagulants, when there are complex medical conditions and concern re likely bleeding. Whilst the development of an electronic prescribing system may increase the probability of more clarity in prescription of anticoagulants, this is not in place currently. In addition, this alone in my view will not ensure oversight of anticoagulant management, unless other measures are taken to ensure senior review of patients, and a clear prescription plan recorded for all staff to follow. ”

    Source location

    Marian DAY · 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

    Require senior-doctor discussion and full documentation before changing an existing warfarin plan.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2. Changes to existing warfarin plans to be made only following discussion with senior doctors, and fully documented.”

    Source location

    2020-0199-Response-from-Kings-Mill-Hospital-Redacted.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 30 November 2020

    Open published response
  4. Northamptonshire

    AI-generated summary

    Susan Sterland · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    Susan Sterland was brought to Kettering General Hospital on 29 December 2018 with an intestinal obstruction that was not diagnosed, and was admitted after being diagnosed with constipation. Her condition deteriorated, care was not escalated, and she collapsed and died early on 31 December 2018. The principal concern was that she was not seen by a senior doctor despite deterioration and remaining in hospital for about 40 hours; the report states that earlier senior review might have led to investigation and earlier diagnosis.

    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 senior doctor review for deteriorating patients

    Wider context from the report

    “This was obviously a very busy time at the hospital. However, Ms Sterland was in the hospital for some 40 hours, she was not getting better, there were signs that she was deteriorating during the late morning and afternoon of 30 December, there was a plan to admit her to a ward but there were no beds available. My concern is that in this situation she was not seen by a senior doctor. If Ms Sterland had been seen by a senior doctor the evidence was that she would have had further investigation which would have led to earlier diagnosis of the obstruction and may have altered the outcome. The evidence at the inquest suggested that there are some categories of patients in the emergency department for whom a senior review is mandatory. It may be that the Trust would wish to consider whether the circumstances of this case suggest that there are other situations in which a senior review should be required. ”

    Source location

    Susan Sterland · 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

    Ratify and implement an updated ED standard operating policy defining responsibility for each patient and escalation arrangements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. A revision to the Standard Operating Practice to set out who is responsible for reviewing patients:”

    Source location

    2020-0062-Response-from-Kettering-General-Hospital_Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 March 2020

    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

    Increase daily senior decision-making capacity by adding middle-grade shifts and a second consultant shift in the Emergency Department.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Department medical rota has been changed to increase the number of senior decision makers present within the department on each day. As a result the number of middle-grade shifts has been increased from 9 to 11 shifts, daily. In addition, the number of consultants in the department has been increased by adding a second consultant shift from 15:00 to 22.00 and we are aiming to have 2 consultants in ED from 08:00 to 22.00. This will allow a timely senior review of patients and will provide consultant ward rounds for EDU.”

    Source location

    2020-0062-Response-from-Kettering-General-Hospital_Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 March 2020

    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

    Create a new EDU operating policy specifying consultant ward-round responsibility, patient ownership and risks identified in the report before recommissioning.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The EDU was decommissioned in March 2020 in response to Covid 19. The area where EDU was located is currently being used as ED Major cubicles which are part of the ED footprint.”

    Source location

    2020-0062-Response-from-Kettering-General-Hospital_Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 March 2020

    Open published response
  5. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Keith HILL · 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

    Keith Hill was admitted with biliary sepsis and underwent a liver biopsy, after which he developed bleeding requiring surgery and later suffered bowel haemorrhage. The report identified concerns about communication between specialists, inadequate medical records, and insufficient support and scrutiny around the prescription and dispensing of micafungin.

    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 adequate senior specialist support to junior medical staff

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The junior pharmacist charged with dispensing the micafungin on the evening of 25 June recognised its toxicity to the liver and could not see from the medical record that Mr Hill’s liver function tests and hepatitis had been taken into account in the prescription. The last relevant entry in the medical record indicated that the micafungin should be held off. He sought senior guidance. However, there was no specialist hepatology pharmacist on the list of available contacts. Recognising he was outside his expertise, he contacted an intensive care specialist pharmacist, the on call microbiologist and the medical doctor looking after Mr Hill. However, no decision was made regarding the micafungin and so it was simply not given. A professor of hepatology was on call and knew Mr Hill’s situation well, but he was not contacted by the ward doctor (or by the microbiologist or a senior pharmacist). Despite improvements to the availability of senior pharmacists on call at the Royal London Hospital, concern remains about night time care and proper scrutiny of prescriptions. Junior medical staff do not appear to be sufficiently supported in this. ”

    Source location

    Keith HILL · 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

    Reiterate consultant support and escalation expectations to junior hepatology doctors, and update switchboard and ward whiteboard contact details.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following this case, the hepatology team have reiterated to the junior doctors on the team the availability of consultant support and have ensured that the switchboard contact details and ward 'white board' is up-to-date. This will also be repeated during the induction training of new medical juniors and the consultants are stressing to their trainees the importance of escalation.”

    Source location

    2019-0446-Response-from-Barts-NHS-Trust-R
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 January 2020

    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

    Repeat consultant-support and escalation information during induction training for new junior doctors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following this case, the hepatology team have reiterated to the junior doctors on the team the availability of consultant support and have ensured that the switchboard contact details and ward 'white board' is up-to-date. This will also be repeated during the induction training of new medical juniors and the consultants are stressing to their trainees the importance of escalation.”

    Source location

    2019-0446-Response-from-Barts-NHS-Trust-R
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 January 2020

    Open published response
  6. Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Julie MORREY · 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

    Julie MORREY died in Royal Stoke University Hospital on 10 January 2019 after presenting with renal failure and bronchopneumonia. The report raised concerns about inadequate communication between hospital departments, a lack of proactive nursing management, insufficient fluids for over 24 hours, and no senior clinician review during that period.

    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 senior clinician review after admission

    Wider context from the report

    “3. There was no review of the patient by a senior clinician for 24 hours following her admission and whilst she awaited a bed on the Renal Unit. ”

    Source location

    Julie MORREY · 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

    Escalate cases without an enacted management plan to the Nurse in Charge or senior decision-maker and record the escalation in nursing documentation and Datix.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “b. There is to be an escalation of care to the Nurse in Charge and/or senior decision maker in circumstances where no management plan has been enacted. This is to be recorded in the nursing documentation and through completion of Datix.”

    Source location

    2019-0353-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-North-Midlands-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 November 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 absence of consultant review was not a separate error because existing senior-review mechanisms were robust; it resulted from misunderstanding responsibility for the patient.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. Clinical teams would like to reassure H M Coroner that both Renal and Acute medicine do have robust mechanisms for ensuring senior review of patients. In this case, if either specialty had thought the patient to be under their care, they would have had a review. On this occasion, the lack of a consultant review was not a separate or additional error; it all stems from the misunderstanding of allocation at the beginning of the patient’s care. The corrective actions outlined in 1 and 2 above will prevent such a situation from arising in the future.”

    Source location

    2019-0353-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-North-Midlands-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 November 2019

    Open published response
  7. Norfolk

    AI-generated summary

    Brian Robert HAVARD · 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

    Brian Robert Havard attended the Emergency Department with chest pain and vomiting, was discharged with a diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain, then collapsed in the car and died while being taken back to hospital. The concerns included failure to review ambulance records, inadequate senior review arrangements, and poor 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

    Failure to exercise professional curiosity in high-risk discharge decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The doctor had not read the ambulance electronic records and was not aware of a system in place to obtain these notes prior to his seeing the patient. These notes contained information about Mr Havard having hematemesis and two doses of morphine given to Mr Havard by the crew. He did examine Mr Havard and had differential diagnoses and went to speak to the locum consultant who was just coming on shift for advice. The consultant did not ask to see the notes from the crew or the hospital notes and was just shown the ECG. He evinced no professional curiosity about a patient needing three doses of morphine and being considered for discharge. The locum consultant did not seem to be aware of any system in place to access the ambulance electronic records. He did not give any convincing explanation for not seeing this patient or his apparent ignorance regarding obtaining ambulance notes. He did not give a convincing explanation for not reviewing the patient. ”

    Source location

    Brian Robert HAVARD · 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 of senior clinicians to review patients referred for advice

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The doctor had not read the ambulance electronic records and was not aware of a system in place to obtain these notes prior to his seeing the patient. These notes contained information about Mr Havard having hematemesis and two doses of morphine given to Mr Havard by the crew. He did examine Mr Havard and had differential diagnoses and went to speak to the locum consultant who was just coming on shift for advice. The consultant did not ask to see the notes from the crew or the hospital notes and was just shown the ECG. He evinced no professional curiosity about a patient needing three doses of morphine and being considered for discharge. The locum consultant did not seem to be aware of any system in place to access the ambulance electronic records. He did not give any convincing explanation for not seeing this patient or his apparent ignorance regarding obtaining ambulance notes. He did not give a convincing explanation for not reviewing the patient. ”

    Source location

    Brian Robert HAVARD · 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

    Lack of a system ensuring senior review of cases referred by junior doctors

    Wider context from the report

    “2. There did not appear to be a system in place for junior doctors who have approached a senior to have their case reviewed with the responsibility for this being on the senior doctor. ”

    Source location

    Brian Robert HAVARD · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. West London

    AI-generated summary

    Dennis Peter Alfred Warner · 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

    Dennis Peter Alfred Warner died in hospital on 6 December 2016 after falling at home and sustaining a chest injury. The principal concerns were that his advanced dementia affected his ability to understand discharge information, that the emergency department was overcrowded, that chest X-ray could underestimate injury, and that senior review and efforts to contact and recall him 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

    Delays in senior clinician review of reported chest X-rays

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Warner suffered from advanced dementia and was the main carer for his elderly wife who also suffered with dementia. He was given information about managing his injury on discharge which he was demonstrably unable to comprehend or remember. Specifically, it was recorded by the examining clinicians that he was unable to answer any orientation questions or to remember the reason for his being in hospital. (2) The Emergency department was full beyond capacity and he was examined in a meeting room as no cubicles were available (3) chest xray was performed. I heard in written evidence from ████████ Consultant in Emergency Medicine that chest xray is a suboptimal modality for imaging the chest after injury often underestimating both the number of rib fractures and the extent of any intrathoracic injury(4) there was a delay in senior clinician review of the chest xrays after reporting and a passive approach to contacting Mr Warner was taken by the reviewing clinician. An incorrect number was held for Mr Warner but even if contact had been made then he would have had difficulty comprehending and retaining the information; attempts to contact to contact the GP by phone were abandoned because the phone was not answered. A letter was sent which was described as misleading. Consequently the efforts made to contact and recall the patient were inadequate. ”

    Source location

    Dennis Peter Alfred Warner · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  9. West London

    AI-generated summary

    Henry Curtis-Williams · 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

    Henry Curtis-Williams died from hanging at Acton Cemetery on 17 May 2018; the inquest conclusion was hanging and suicide. Concerns included inadequate contemporaneous recording, discharge by junior doctors without prior senior review, and informal communication without records of important messages.

    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 require senior clinical reference before discharge by very junior doctors

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) There was an acceptance that patients could be discharged by very junior doctors without prior reference to Consultant or Senior colleagues even though Henry had been admitted after being assessed by 2 Section 12 approved doctors and an Appointed Mental Health Professional who felt he needed a prolonged inpatient stay. ”

    Source location

    Henry Curtis-Williams · 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

    Audit discharge records to examine whether senior doctors or Consultants participated in discharge decisions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You identified concern that Henry was discharged by a junior doctor without prior reference to a Consultant or senior colleague. Discharge from hospital can represent a period of uncertainty and risk for the service user. Therefore, it is right to observe that such decisions must be made using members of the multi-disciplinary team who have the required knowledge and skills to support a safe and supportive discharge. Following receipt of your report the Trust has completed an audit to examine the current practice applied. Reviewing eighty-two records, from discharges completed in August and September 2018, the audit confirmed 96% had evidence within the health record that a senior doctor or Consultant had been part of the decision of discharge. To strengthen this, the Medical Director has”

    Source location

    2018-0397-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 5 April 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

    Provide learning to Consultant Psychiatrists about senior involvement in discharge decisions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You identified concern that Henry was discharged by a junior doctor without prior reference to a Consultant or senior colleague. Discharge from hospital can represent a period of uncertainty and risk for the service user. Therefore, it is right to observe that such decisions must be made using members of the multi-disciplinary team who have the required knowledge and skills to support a safe and supportive discharge. Following receipt of your report the Trust has completed an audit to examine the current practice applied. Reviewing eighty-two records, from discharges completed in August and September 2018, the audit confirmed 96% had evidence within the health record that a senior doctor or Consultant had been part of the decision of discharge. To strengthen this, the Medical Director has”

    Source location

    2018-0397-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 5 April 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

    Provide junior doctors with discharge-related teaching during Trust induction.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “provided learning to Consultant Psychiatrists and teaching will be provided to junior doctors as part of their induction to the Trust.”

    Source location

    2018-0397-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 5 April 2019

    Open published response
  10. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Eileen Cooke · 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

    Eileen Cooke, an 80-year-old woman with dementia, frailty, contractures and a fractured left ankle, died in Pinderfields Hospital on 21 December 2017. Concerns included the lack of a best-interests multidisciplinary meeting, her discharge to a nursing home with unresolved medical and care needs, inadequate preparation for wound dressing and pain control, and the risk posed to other patients by precipitously arranged hospital discharges.

    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 senior clinician coordination for complex care decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The family were not involved in her discharge from hospital at all. It was arranged in haste. Inadequate preparatory work had been done to establish how her wound dressing could be carried out and the pain control needed whilst this was done. No consideration was given to the skills required to achieve this, or the wisdom of involving a tissue viability nurse. 4. Evidence taken from healthcare professionals at the Inquest indicated that the 7.11.17 discharge was an error of judgement. It effectively passed an unresolved problem to a nursing home. 5. A ‘best interests’ meeting was required to assess her needs and formulate a management plan. This should have involved the orthopaedic surgeon, the vascular surgeon, nurses, a physio-therapist, a care of the elderly physician, a palliative care specialist, the general practitioner and the family. In the event no such meeting was arranged. It appeared difficult for senior clinicians to get hold of each other. Even if the issues proved unsolvable the family would have at least understood the position and could brace themselves for a period of palliative care, rather than being left in the dark. ”

    Source location

    Eileen Cooke · 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

    Use daily multidisciplinary board rounds and safety huddles to review treatment, discharge plans, patient needs and emerging concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Each of our Care of the Elderly wards has access to therapy teams who attend daily board rounds which occur on a Monday to Friday. Treatment and prospective discharge plans are discussed. This allows issues to be raised and concern addressed: such as how someone is going to manage at home or whether further information or time is needed. At these daily board rounds and safety huddles, therapists, nurses, doctors and discharge coordinators are present. Each of our care of the elderly wards has a dedicated discharge coordinator, who helps to facilitate safe and timely discharges of frail older patients. Once a patient is deemed medically fit, the therapists work to establish the baseline and whether a patient’s current needs have changed.”

    Source location

    2018-0311-Response-Mid-Yorkshire-Hospitals
    Page 3 · response
    Published 23 February 2019

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026