Recurring concern

Inadequate control of falls risks

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 31 Oct 2013•Latest report 21 May 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes assessment, care planning, equipment, supervision, handover, referral, reporting, post-fall response and assurance explicitly dedicated to falls risk.

Not included

  • Generic mobility, staffing or environmental failures not explicitly tied to falls
  • The occurrence of a fall without an identified control deficiency
  • Falls from windows where the asserted control is the design or restriction of the window
Reports
165

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
285

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
349

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 Care14
Care Quality Commission9
Barts Health NHS Trust6
Office of the Chief Coroner5
Aneurin Bevan University LHB4
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust4
Royal London Hospital4
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust4
East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust3
Hc-One Limited3
Swansea Bay University Local Health Board3
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust3
Barchester Healthcare Limited2
Borough Care Ltd2
Cardiff & Vale University LHB2

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. Derby and Derbyshire

    AI-generated summary

    Kenneth Cottam · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    Kenneth Cottam, an 89-year-old resident of Coxbench Hall Residential Home, sustained a subdural bleed after one of two reported falls and died in hospital on 13 April 2016. The court heard that no falls risk assessment was carried out and that staff did not consider a possible link between his confusion and an earlier fall, while concerns were raised about the clarity, robustness and consistent implementation of falls prevention and management procedures.

    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 to sufficiently understand falls policies and procedures for consistent and appropriate implementation

    Wider context from the report

    “Having heard evidence from the management team at Coxbench Hall Care Home, the court was not reassured that there are clear and robust policies and procedures in place in relation to falls prevention and falls management, or that those policies and procedures are widely and consistently understood by staff. (1) The court was not reassured that there are clear and robust policies and procedures in place in relation to falls risk assessment and management. (2) The court was not reassured that staff had a sufficient understanding of the falls policies and procedures in place to enable them implement them consistently and appropriately. ”

    Source location

    Kenneth Cottam · 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

    Disseminate falls policies and require staff policy acknowledgements on joining and annually.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Falls Policies².”

    Source location

    2017-0360-Response-by-Coxbench-Hall-Residentail-Home
    Page 1 · response
    Published 11 February 2018

    Open published response
  2. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Kathleen Joan Devine · 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 Joan Devine, a 94-year-old resident of a nursing home with advanced dementia and a history of falls, suffered an unwitnessed fall on 8 June 2017 while attempting to mobilise unsupervised. She sustained a right femur fracture, underwent surgery, and died on 10 June 2017 after her condition deteriorated post-operatively. Concerns included gaps in recorded observations, the removal and unplugging of a falls mat and sensor, and inadequate handover information for agency staff.

    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

    Inadequate quality and extent of handover instructions to agency staff

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The quality and extent of handover instructions to agency staff; ”

    Source location

    Kathleen Joan Devine · 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

    Removal and unplugging of falls mat and sensor for high-falls-risk residents

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The removal and unplugging of a falls mat and sensor in the room of a resident with high risk falls who was awake, unsupervised and unobserved; ”

    Source location

    Kathleen Joan Devine · 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

    Provide agency staff with robust handovers and clear resident-care guidelines when their use is necessary.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• At Arden Court, we have dramatically reduced the levels of agency staff that are used, therefore, we now have regular staff who are aware of the equipment that needs to be in place for each of the residents. Although, if an agency staff member is needed to be used, then they receive a robust handover and clear guidelines of the needs of the residents.”

    Source location

    2017-0411-Response-by-Bloom-Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 February 2018

    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 precise care plans for residents using crash mats or sensor mats, including placement, equipment condition and safe-use guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• At Arden Court every resident who has a crash mat and/or sensor mat now has a precise care plan purely for maintaining safety with regards to the crash mat and sensor mat. Within the care plan documentation, this meticulously gives guidance to staff to ensure that the crash mat and sensor mat are in the correct place, certify that all equipment is used precisely, in good working order and the fundamental aim of this care plan is to reduce the risk of falls and promote safety. Therefore, all staff must comply to this care plan to know exactly how to safely care for a resident with a crash mat and/or sensor mat (Appendix 1: Care Plan).”

    Source location

    2017-0411-Response-by-Bloom-Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 February 2018

    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

    Highlight crash-mat and sensor-mat use in bold on daily handover sheets to alert new and agency staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• A new system that has now been enforced, is that every resident who has a crash mat and/or sensor mat has this included on the daily handover sheet in bold capital letters next to the resident’s name. The daily handover sheet is a typed document that provides a brief overview of each resident. Therefore, by having this on the daily handover sheet will ensure that any new staff or agency staff are vigilant to which residents depend upon a crash mat and/or sensor mat (Appendix 2: Most updated handover – anonymised).”

    Source location

    2017-0411-Response-by-Bloom-Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 February 2018

    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

    Add daily mattress-check documentation requiring staff to confirm equipment placement, settings and working condition.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Another new process that is now applied by the staff, is an additional column on the daily mattress check sheet. On a daily basis the staff check that the air flow mattresses are on the correct settings in relation to their weight. The staff document this on the mattress check list which each resident has in their rooms, therefore, the staff are now checking daily that, if needed, the resident has a crash mat and/or sensor mat in place and the staff have to test that the equipment is working correctly and document this. Therefore, this firstly prompts the staff to ensure that the equipment is in their bedroom and secondly, ensures that the staff test and inspect the equipment, to ensure that it is working correctly (Appendix 3: Mattress, Bedrails and Sensor mat check).”

    Source location

    2017-0411-Response-by-Bloom-Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 February 2018

    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 the risks of unplugging sensor mats or moving crash mats in in-house moving and handling training for staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Additionally, the in house moving and handling training, now includes the importance of not unplugging sensor mats or moving crash mats, this is aimed at all staff, especially staff members such as domestics. The”

    Source location

    2017-0411-Response-by-Bloom-Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 February 2018

    Open published response
  3. Central and South East Kent

    AI-generated summary

    Peter Blakeney KING · 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

    Peter Blakeney King was admitted to hospital with confusion, headache, fever and limb weakness, and later fell from his bed on 18 March 2017, sustaining fatal head injuries. The concerns included inadequate documentation and implementation of falls precautions, use of bed rails despite an assessment that they were not recommended, failure to provide an observable bed and crash mat, and failure to address falls risk at handover.

    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 complete, review and enforce falls risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Between January 2017 and April 2017 five deaths occurred on Cambridge Wards at William Harvey Hospital. Common to each was the fact that the death was caused as a result of a fall on the ward in circumstances where falls risk assessments were either inadequate, incomplete, not reviewed or not enforced. Inquests in respect of each of the deaths have been held, the last in November 2017. The Trust was given an opportunity following the earlier inquests to provide evidence of changes to practice following the deaths. It is recognised that at the time of hearing the inquests much work has already been done to address these issues but that work is ongoing and parts of that work have not yet been implemented/were in the process of being implemented. It is for this reason that Regulation 28 reports arise from three of the deaths. ”

    Source location

    Peter Blakeney KING · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to address falls risk at handover

    Wider context from the report

    “(5) Falls risk was not addressed at handover ”

    Source location

    Peter Blakeney KING · 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 address and follow up escalated falls-prevention concerns

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) When Mr King was transferred to Cambridge ward from the clinical decision unit the receiving nurse recognised that Mr King should have been nursed in an observable bed with a crash mat and as neither were available on the ward, escalated the matter to the site co-ordinator. There was no evidence that these concerns were ever addressed by the site co-ordinator or followed up by nursing staff ”

    Source location

    Peter Blakeney KING · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to recognise and implement required fall-prevention interventions

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) A review of the falls risk assessment and bed rails assessment was recorded, however the fact that interventions were required to prevent the risk of falls was either not recognised or not implemented. ”

    Source location

    Peter Blakeney KING · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure bed-rail use follows bed-rail risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) In respect of Mr King a falls risk assessment and precautions to minimise the risk of falls was not properly documented; interventions were not recorded and no referrals were made to either the falls team or physiotherapy. A bed rails risk assessment was completed which recorded that bed rails were not recommended but were in use at the time of the fall. ”

    Source location

    Peter Blakeney KING · 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 document falls risk assessments and fall-prevention interventions

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) In respect of Mr King a falls risk assessment and precautions to minimise the risk of falls was not properly documented; interventions were not recorded and no referrals were made to either the falls team or physiotherapy. A bed rails risk assessment was completed which recorded that bed rails were not recommended but were in use at the time of the fall. ”

    Source location

    Peter Blakeney KING · 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 the Falls Risk Assessment and Care Plan to align it explicitly with NICE falls-prevention guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There are no published studies of falls risk prediction tools that predicted risk at greater than 70% sensitivity. The National Institute Health and Care Excellence (NICE) therefore concluded that all inpatients aged 65 and older ‘should have their care managed as if they are at risk of falling’ on the basis that these patients ‘often have newly acquired risk factors (such as acute illness, delirium, cardiovascular disease, impaired mobility, medication or syncope syndrome) and are exposed to unfamiliar surroundings, which puts them at increased risk of falling during their inpatient stay’.¹ The current falls policy and risk assessment tool reflect NICE guidance and we have focused on these areas specifically in order to action the factors that are known to reduce falls risk.”

    Source location

    2017-0414-Response-by-East-Kent-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 February 2018

    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 current falls policy and risk assessment tool reflect NICE guidance and address known factors that reduce inpatient falls risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There are no published studies of falls risk prediction tools that predicted risk at greater than 70% sensitivity. The National Institute Health and Care Excellence (NICE) therefore concluded that all inpatients aged 65 and older ‘should have their care managed as if they are at risk of falling’ on the basis that these patients ‘often have newly acquired risk factors (such as acute illness, delirium, cardiovascular disease, impaired mobility, medication or syncope syndrome) and are exposed to unfamiliar surroundings, which puts them at increased risk of falling during their inpatient stay’.¹ The current falls policy and risk assessment tool reflect NICE guidance and we have focused on these areas specifically in order to action the factors that are known to reduce falls risk.”

    Source location

    2017-0414-Response-by-East-Kent-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 February 2018

    Open published response
  4. Central and South East Kent

    AI-generated summary

    Harold Graham WONFOR · 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

    Harold Graham Wonfor was admitted to hospital with confusion, reduced mobility and a history of falls, but no falls assessment or prevention measures were put in place before he suffered an unwitnessed fall and head injury. He sustained a subdural haematoma, declined and died on 30 January 2017. The principal concerns were inadequate falls-risk assessment for vulnerable patients and inadequate monitoring and enforcement of falls-prevention policies and procedures.

    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

    Inadequate monitoring and enforcement of falls prevention policies and procedures

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) There is inadequate monitoring and enforcement of the falls prevention policies and procedures in place ”

    Source location

    Harold Graham WONFOR · 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 complete and review adequate falls risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Between January 2017 and April 2017 five deaths occurred on Cambridge Wards at William Harvey Hospital. Common to each was the fact that the death was caused as a result of a fall on the ward in circumstances where falls risk assessments were either inadequate, incomplete, not reviewed or not enforced. Inquests in respect of each of the deaths have been held, the last in November 2017. The Trust was given an opportunity following the earlier inquests to provide evidence of changes to practice following the deaths. It is recognised that at the time of hearing the inquests much work has already been done to address these issues but that work is ongoing and parts of that work have not yet been implemented/were in the process of being implemented. It is for this reason that Regulation 28 reports arise from three of the deaths. ”

    Source location

    Harold Graham WONFOR · 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

    Inadequate policies and procedures for falls risk assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) That the policies and procedures for falls risk assessment is inadequate especially for the vulnerable ”

    Source location

    Harold Graham WONFOR · 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

    Continue timely and adequate falls risk assessments for patients.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We note this Regulation 28 Report to prevent future deaths is one of three Inquests heard by the Central and South East Coroners in September 2017 and the matters of concern relate to the management of falls within the Trust. Acknowledgement by the Senior Coroner of the improvements that have already been made by the Trust regarding timely and adequate falls risk assessments is gratefully received and this work continues as outlined in my response.”

    Source location

    2017-0408-Response-East-Kent-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 February 2018

    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

    Review the Falls Risk Assessment and Care Plan to explicitly incorporate relevant NICE falls-prevention guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There are no published studies of falls risk prediction tools that predicted risk at greater than 70% sensitivity. The National Institute Health and Care Excellence (NICE) therefore concluded that all inpatients aged 65 and older ‘should have their care managed as if they are at risk of falling’ on the basis that these patients ‘often have newly acquired risk factors (such as acute illness, delirium, cardiovascular disease, impaired mobility, medication or syncope syndrome) and are exposed to unfamiliar surroundings, which puts them at increased risk of falling during their inpatient stay’. The current falls policy and risk assessment tool reflect NICE guidance and we have focused on these areas specifically in order to action the factors that are known to reduce falls risk.”

    Source location

    2017-0408-Response-East-Kent-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 February 2018

    Open published response
  5. Central and South East Kent

    AI-generated summary

    Henry George HONOUR · 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 George Honour suffered an unwitnessed fall in hospital on 4 February 2017, sustaining a left hip fracture that was discovered four days later. He underwent surgery but died on 21 February 2017 from bronchopneumonia associated with immobility and the fracture. Concerns included inadequate falls-risk assessments, inappropriate use of bedrails, and failure to update the assessment or implement protective measures after the fall.

    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 implement required falls precautions

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Between January 2017 and April 2017 five deaths occurred on Cambridge Wards at William Harvey Hospital. Common to each was the fact that the death was caused as a result of a fall on the ward in circumstances where falls risk assessments were either inadequate, incomplete, not reviewed or not enforced. Inquests in respect of each the deaths have been held, the last in November 2017. The Trust was given an opportunity following the earlier inquests to provide evidence of changes to practice following the deaths. It is recognised that at the time of hearing the inquests much work has already been done to address these issues but that work is ongoing and parts of that work have not yet been implemented/were in the process of being implemented. It is for this reason that Regulation 28 reports arise from three of the deaths. (2) In respect of Mr Honour the falls risk assessment completed on admission was at best perfunctory, as were subsequent reviews which did not rectify earlier errors or recognise the need for precautionary measures to be taken when Mr. Honour should have been nursed in an observable bed with a falls alert and hip protectors in light of the risks posed. (3) The bedrail risk assessment was difficult to interpret in light of the falls risk assessment, bed rails were utilised when they should not have been. (4) The falls risk assessment was not updated post fall and no protective measures were put in place. ”

    Source location

    Henry George HONOUR · 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 maintain adequate, complete, current and enforced falls risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Between January 2017 and April 2017 five deaths occurred on Cambridge Wards at William Harvey Hospital. Common to each was the fact that the death was caused as a result of a fall on the ward in circumstances where falls risk assessments were either inadequate, incomplete, not reviewed or not enforced. Inquests in respect of each the deaths have been held, the last in November 2017. The Trust was given an opportunity following the earlier inquests to provide evidence of changes to practice following the deaths. It is recognised that at the time of hearing the inquests much work has already been done to address these issues but that work is ongoing and parts of that work have not yet been implemented/were in the process of being implemented. It is for this reason that Regulation 28 reports arise from three of the deaths. (2) In respect of Mr Honour the falls risk assessment completed on admission was at best perfunctory, as were subsequent reviews which did not rectify earlier errors or recognise the need for precautionary measures to be taken when Mr. Honour should have been nursed in an observable bed with a falls alert and hip protectors in light of the risks posed. (3) The bedrail risk assessment was difficult to interpret in light of the falls risk assessment, bed rails were utilised when they should not have been. (4) The falls risk assessment was not updated post fall and no protective measures were put in place. ”

    Source location

    Henry George HONOUR · 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

    Inappropriate use of bed rails

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Between January 2017 and April 2017 five deaths occurred on Cambridge Wards at William Harvey Hospital. Common to each was the fact that the death was caused as a result of a fall on the ward in circumstances where falls risk assessments were either inadequate, incomplete, not reviewed or not enforced. Inquests in respect of each the deaths have been held, the last in November 2017. The Trust was given an opportunity following the earlier inquests to provide evidence of changes to practice following the deaths. It is recognised that at the time of hearing the inquests much work has already been done to address these issues but that work is ongoing and parts of that work have not yet been implemented/were in the process of being implemented. It is for this reason that Regulation 28 reports arise from three of the deaths. (2) In respect of Mr Honour the falls risk assessment completed on admission was at best perfunctory, as were subsequent reviews which did not rectify earlier errors or recognise the need for precautionary measures to be taken when Mr. Honour should have been nursed in an observable bed with a falls alert and hip protectors in light of the risks posed. (3) The bedrail risk assessment was difficult to interpret in light of the falls risk assessment, bed rails were utilised when they should not have been. (4) The falls risk assessment was not updated post fall and no protective measures were put in place. ”

    Source location

    Henry George HONOUR · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

    AI-generated summary

    Patrick Clifford · 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

    Patrick Clifford fell in a hospital toilet after fainting on 19 March 2016 and suffered a fractured acetabulum. His condition deteriorated, and he developed pneumonia due to immobility and heart failure before dying on 18 September 2016. The principal concerns were inadequate understanding of toilet supervision, difficulties transferring radiology images between hospitals, and refusal to undertake requested Judet X-rays, causing delays to treatment.

    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 supervise patients in the toilet unless a fall has occurred

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The evidence from the nursing staff that a patient would not be supervised within the toilet unless there had been a fall on the ward. It was not clear whether this was a general understanding by nursing staff or a specific policy. I am concerned that future falls (and therefore deaths) will occur unless action is taken to address this policy/understanding. ”

    Source location

    Patrick Clifford · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Pauline Hayston · 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 Hayston, who had reduced mobility, frailty and recent falls, sustained an unwitnessed fall while attempting to mobilise as an inpatient and later died following a fractured neck of femur and resulting immobility. The concerns identified related to the reliability and fitness for purpose of the Rambledguard falls mats, the suitability of the wireless system when several mats were in use, and the absence of technical instructions for nursing staff about operational problems.

    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 nursing staff with instructions on the operational integrity of essential falls-risk equipment

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence raises the following concerns: 1. The reliability of the Rambledguard fall mats and its fitness for purpose. 2. The suitability of a wireless “WiFi” activated where several fall mats are in place in proximity to each other. 3. Insertion of instructions to nursing staff where the operational integrity of an essential equipment to alleviate falls risks has been identified. ”

    Source location

    Pauline Hayston · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. West London

    AI-generated summary

    Mrs Pamela Craigie · 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 Pamela Craigie died on 19 March 2017 after falling at Cloisters Nursing Home on 24 February 2017 and sustaining an acute subdural haematoma and head injury. The report raised concerns about inconsistent supervision and adherence to her care plan, unclear criteria and processes for referring residents for urgent 1:1 care, delays in urgent assessments, and how residents’ safety was managed while awaiting additional care.

    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 effective interim management of residents at high risk of falls pending 1:1 care

    Wider context from the report

    “4. Following the above, in the interim, the Home informs the family that the resident is a high risk of falls, but it is not clear how the high risk is managed effectively until 1:1 care is put in place (or until the MDT meeting). The Home should ensure that steps are taken to ensure the safety of the resident in the interim. ”

    Source location

    Mrs Pamela Craigie · 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

    Outline interim steps in the Falls Prevention Policy to manage resident falls risk while funding decisions are pending.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Company has outlined, so far as is reasonably practicable steps, to manage the risk whilst waiting for funding in the interim. This is outlined in the Falls Prevention Policy, page 11, section 14”

    Source location

    2017-0279-Response-by-Advinia-Health-Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 November 2017

    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

    Falls may still occur despite 1:1 supervision or supervision in communal areas, so increased supervision does not eliminate the risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To conclude, the Company has discussed this case in full in order to attempt to minimise the risk of falls. Learning has taken place within the Company. However, it is important to note that although a resident may have 1:1 supervision and or be supervised in a communal setting, the risk of fall occurring may still be high despite those increased supervision levels.”

    Source location

    2017-0279-Response-by-Advinia-Health-Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 November 2017

    Open published response
  9. Wiltshire and Swindon

    AI-generated summary

    Francis Mortimer LANGLEY · 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

    Francis Mortimer LANGLEY fell from a step ladder in November 2016, sustained thoracic spinal fractures and a thoracic cord injury, and became paralysed from the waist down. He later developed hospital-acquired pneumonia and died on 30 April 2017; the principal concern was the assessment and non-use of bedrails despite identified risks and apparently contradictory assessment responses before a subsequent fall from bed.

    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 bed-fall risk assessments to provide consistent and coherent answers

    Wider context from the report

    “As part of the evidence when there is a fall in hospital (and I understand that SWICC is now part of Great Western Hospital hence I am writing to you). I always look at the risk assessments. For ease of reference I have enclosed with this letter marked A, a copy of the earliest assessment that I can on file dated 14 December 2016 in Great Western Hospital format which as you will see in response to the question as to whether or not the patient was admitted due to the fall or has fallen since admission and is at the risk of falling again the response is "Yes", although the ultimate decision was not to engage bed safety rails. As already stated Francis was transferred to SWICC on 30 January 2017 and I have been supplied with a screen dump image marked B showing the two assessments carried out on 30 January and 12 February 2017. The style is very different to the Great Western Hospital approach and in conjunction with this I have regard to a statement from ████████ who was Forest Ward Manager at the relevant time marked C. You will see at the bottom of his statement that the reason safety bedrails were not engaged is the fact that Francis did not have a history of falls from bed. I have to say that I am somewhat concerned and found the questions raised by the SWICC assessment and responses to be contradictory. By way of example I will refer you to the assessment that was carried out on 12 February a few days before the fall from bed on 17 February 2017. In response to the question as to whether or not Francis was at risk from falls from bed the answer was “Yes and No”. In relation to whether or not the patient could injure themselves against the rails due to spasms or uncontrolled movements, the answer was “Yes” yet in response to Does the patient have any behaviour that may interfere with the correct use of the safety rails the answer was “No”. The latter two responses to me contradict each other. Francis was noted that he would have been compliant with the use of safety rails. I have dealt with many cases whereby patients have fallen from their bed or chairs or simply collapsed whilst on the ward resulting in that patient sustaining a head injury from which they have died. To me given Francis’ immobility and the fact that he was in a condition with lower limb paralysis that was essentially alien to him and which involved involuntary movements I am concerned that when assessing the risk as to why safety rails were not engaged in the absence of any mental disorder. I know this is a concern shared by his widow. To me the risk of knocking a lower limb against one of the rails is outweighed by protecting a patient against the risk from falling from a bed and sustaining in particular a serious head injury. In reading the SWICC approach it is almost as if the fact that Francis had not had a fall from bed already predetermines that he is not at risk which to me seems an odd way of risk assessment. I would be grateful if you could please look at the inconsistency that appears to exist between the approach to the use of bedrails on Forest Ward as compared to the rest of Great Western Hospital as I have said the SWICC assessment concerns me in that it is overly complicated and as I have demonstrated has given rise to conflicting answers as part of the assessment process. I would also be grateful for the Trust's consideration in relation to the policy deployed generally when patients suffer whole or partial paralysis as to whether or not automatically those patients should be subject to bedrails. I appreciate it is not entirely black and white but I do find it surprising and I am concerned that bedrails were not engaged as at the 17 February 2017 although as already stated and I wish to emphasise I did not find that the fall contributed to his death. ”

    Source location

    Francis Mortimer LANGLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement personalised nursing care plan documentation, including bed-rail and falls assessments, across all inpatient areas.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “When Great Western Hospitals took over the management of Swindon Community Healthcare Services, each organisation had their own documentation. As with any partnership it takes time to streamline the documentation. I am pleased to update you that from 1 July 2017 the nursing personalised care plan documentation which is used at GWH has been implemented on Forest and Orchard wards (SWICC). The nursing documentation booklet includes bed rails assessment, falls assessment and a care plan. I am sure you are familiar with this document, but I have included a copy of the four day personalised care plan for your perusal. Seven and 14 day versions are available depending on the time the patient is planned to be an inpatient. The assessments and care plans remain the same but there are more pages of the care plan evaluation for the longer admissions.”

    Source location

    2017-00240-Response-by-Great-Western-Hospital-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 October 2017

    Open published response
  10. Sunderland

    AI-generated summary

    Mr James Trevor Vinson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    Mr James Trevor Vinson, aged 72, was admitted to Sunderland Royal Hospital for rehabilitation after treatment for an acute subdural haematoma. He was found after an unwitnessed fall in his hospital room and later died from an intra-peritoneal bleed associated with splenic tears. The concern was that he was not under the close supervision intended despite his assessed falls risk, and that plans for implementing an enhanced care and observation procedure were unclear.

    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 close supervision in the hospital room following review of the falls risk assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “Although the Splenomegaly (identified in Sunderland Royal Hospital on 16th October 2016) would not have led to any changes in the management of Mr Vinson, I was concerned to hear evidence, that Mr Vinson was meant to be under close supervision in his hospital room, but this was not the case despite a review of the falls risk assessment. ”

    Source location

    Mr James Trevor Vinson · 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 pilot an Enhanced Care SOP with a risk assessment tool and criteria for heightened observation of vulnerable adult inpatients.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you will note from the enclosed action plan, the Trust is currently developing an Enhanced Care Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to assess vulnerable adult in-patients’ observation and care requirements. The SOP incorporates an Enhanced Care Risk Assessment Tool and defined criteria for heightened levels of observation. The purpose of this SOP is to ensure our staff maintain an environment which is safe and reduces the risk to patients and others by providing heightened levels of observation for patients within the stated criteria.”

    Source location

    2017-0316-Response-by-City-Hospitals-Sunderland-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 December 2017

    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

    Ratify and roll out the Enhanced Care SOP across the Trust.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you will note from the enclosed action plan, the Trust is currently developing an Enhanced Care Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to assess vulnerable adult in-patients’ observation and care requirements. The SOP incorporates an Enhanced Care Risk Assessment Tool and defined criteria for heightened levels of observation. The purpose of this SOP is to ensure our staff maintain an environment which is safe and reduces the risk to patients and others by providing heightened levels of observation for patients within the stated criteria.”

    Source location

    2017-0316-Response-by-City-Hospitals-Sunderland-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 December 2017

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026