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. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Norma Winifred BRUTON · 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

    Norma Winifred BRUTON was admitted to hospital with a pneumothorax and other lung conditions, suffered an unwitnessed fall while walking to the bathroom, and sustained a fractured neck of femur. Her condition deteriorated after surgery and she died in hospital; concerns related to falls-risk assessments not prompting staff to consider or document attachments such as chest drains and intravenous infusions, or their relevance to falls risk.

    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 documentation on other forms to prompt reconsideration of the falls risk assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The Birmingham Heartlands Hospital falls risk assessment document does not prompt staff to consider or document the presence of attachments such as chest drains or intravenous infusions. 2. The document does not prompt staff to comment on the relevance or otherwise of such attachments when assessing the risk of falls. 3. Where attachments are documented on other forms (for example, the manual handling assessment form), this does not prompt the staff to reconsider the falls risk assessment. ”

    Source location

    Norma Winifred BRUTON · 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 the falls risk assessment document to prompt assessment of attachment relevance

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The Birmingham Heartlands Hospital falls risk assessment document does not prompt staff to consider or document the presence of attachments such as chest drains or intravenous infusions. 2. The document does not prompt staff to comment on the relevance or otherwise of such attachments when assessing the risk of falls. 3. Where attachments are documented on other forms (for example, the manual handling assessment form), this does not prompt the staff to reconsider the falls risk assessment. ”

    Source location

    Norma Winifred BRUTON · 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

    Review the falls risk assessment and identify required improvements to capture equipment-related mobility risks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Updates to falls risk assessment document We have considered the concerns you have raised within your report to prevent future deaths and we are taking steps to add in a drop down menu, within the falls risk assessment, which will allow staff to select an appropriate option if a patient has any equipment, such as drains, in place. This will then also be recorded in the PHAF (Patient Handling Assessment Form) therefore attachments will be reflected in both risk assessments. This will further increase staff awareness of falls risk factors.”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 May 2023

    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 a PICS falls-assessment dropdown for equipment such as drains and record the selected information in the Patient Handling Assessment Form.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Updates to falls risk assessment document We have considered the concerns you have raised within your report to prevent future deaths and we are taking steps to add in a drop down menu, within the falls risk assessment, which will allow staff to select an appropriate option if a patient has any equipment, such as drains, in place. This will then also be recorded in the PHAF (Patient Handling Assessment Form) therefore attachments will be reflected in both risk assessments. This will further increase staff awareness of falls risk factors.”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 May 2023

    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

    Manual handling and falls assessments need not automatically feed into each other because staff are expected to consider them together with other records.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The information recorded in the manual handling assessment has not been designed to automatically feed into the falls risk assessment as this was considered to be a duplication of the information in the patient record. The recommendation is that these assessments are looked at in combination not isolation.”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 May 2023

    Open published response
  2. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Roger Southwick · 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

    Roger Southwick was admitted to hospital on 5 November 2022 with breathlessness, a chest infection and low sodium levels following heart failure. He fell on 7 November after an inaccurate falls risk assessment and concerns about his mobility were not acted on; he sustained a significant subdural haemorrhage and died on 9 November 2022. The substantive concerns were failures to accurately assess and reassess his falls risk, and the failure of the investigation report to identify these issues.

    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 Falls Risk Assessments accurately

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There was a failure to complete the Falls Risk Assessment accurately; ”

    Source location

    Roger Southwick · 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

    Recirculate the falls proforma within the Acute Medical Unit and implement monthly ward-link-nurse audits of assessment accuracy.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The requirement of when and how complete a falls risk assessment is clearly described in the Trust’s Slips, and Falls Policy, which is accessible to all staff in the Trust (attached for your information). There has been a focused piece of work undertaken on the Acute Medical Unit in relation to falls risk assessment and the accuracy of this. During the inquest of Mr Southwick, the falls proforma was not completed in line with Trust policy following a fall. This proforma has been recirculated within the Acute Medical Unit team with emphasis on the importance of the accuracy of this document. As such a monthly audit has been implemented and is completed by the ward link nurse for falls. This focused piece of work has been discussed at a number of forums including:”

    Source location

    Response from Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 May 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Amend the falls-prevention policy to assess changes from a patient’s baseline mobility and support holistic patient and relative or carer assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust have reviewed the Falls prevention policy and have identified further improvement to the policy which will now include the assessment of the patient to include changes from their ‘baseline’ mobility, this will facilitate a holistic patient and relative/carer approach to assessing mobility and any acute changes.”

    Source location

    Response from Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 17 May 2023

    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

    Operate the Safer Care Group to develop, implement and monitor falls-prevention work, including training, audit, performance gaps and improvement plans.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Safer Care Group –The Safer Care Group was created to lead the development, implementation and monitoring of work within the Safer Care portfolio which includes falls. The Group is chaired by one of the trusts Deputy Chief Nurses and the patient safety clinical lead. This group reports into Service Quality and Governance (SQAG) via the Patient Safety Programme Board. The group monitors performance, training and audit in relation to harm prevention across the Integrated Care Foundation Trust. It measures compliance against key targets taking responsibility for identification of gaps and develops improvement plans to address and action these. Oversight of divisional work is monitored via this group, with key update reports including a summary of training compliance, audit results, action plan updates, learning from incidents and any quality improvement work being delivered.”

    Source location

    Response from Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 May 2023

    Open published response
  3. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Doris Joyce Smith · 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

    Doris Joyce Smith fell on Ruby Ward on 9 October 2020, suffered a traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage, and died on 14 October 2020. The report identifies concerns about delayed and inaccurate falls risk assessments, inadequate neurological and ward observations, failure to implement physiotherapy advice, poor record keeping, and ineffective communication about the care and observation levels required.

    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 completing falls risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust staff: a. delayed the completion of a falls risk assessment b. completed the falls risk assessment with inaccurate information to assess Doris Smith’s risk and updates were also inaccurate c. did not follow the advice of the physiotherapist that would have required Doris Smith to mobilise only with assistance of staff and whether her level of observations should have been changed. ”

    Source location

    Doris Joyce Smith · 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

    Inaccurate falls risk assessments and updates

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust staff: a. delayed the completion of a falls risk assessment b. completed the falls risk assessment with inaccurate information to assess Doris Smith’s risk and updates were also inaccurate c. did not follow the advice of the physiotherapist that would have required Doris Smith to mobilise only with assistance of staff and whether her level of observations should have been changed. ”

    Source location

    Doris Joyce Smith · 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 falls assessments within 24 hours of admission and update them after clinical changes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since Doris was a patient with EPUT, the Trust have made a number of practice changes to improve the care provided to patients in relation to falls. These are detailed below:”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 March 2023

    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 falls-risk assessment training in clinical and temporary-worker induction, with probationary knowledge review for substantive staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- The falls risk assessment is included in the local induction of all clinical ward staff band 2 to band 7 and for the induction of temporary workers. Knowledge and understanding is also reviewed in the probation period of substantive staff members through discussions, which usually concludes after the first six months of employment. This can be extended if there are further learning requirements or concerns for practice. Furthermore, the admissions checklist (which involves consideration of falls risk) is audited weekly by Ward Managers with action taken to ensure these assessments are completed if they are incomplete.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University
    Page 2 · response
    Published 7 March 2023

    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

    Audit falls-risk assessment completion weekly and monitor outstanding assessments through ward dashboards, handovers and assurance processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- The falls risk assessment is included in the local induction of all clinical ward staff band 2 to band 7 and for the induction of temporary workers. Knowledge and understanding is also reviewed in the probation period of substantive staff members through discussions, which usually concludes after the first six months of employment. This can be extended if there are further learning requirements or concerns for practice. Furthermore, the admissions checklist (which involves consideration of falls risk) is audited weekly by Ward Managers with action taken to ensure these assessments are completed if they are incomplete.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University
    Page 2 · response
    Published 7 March 2023

    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

    Relauch ward Falls Champion Networks to share learning, support revised policy implementation and audit updated falls assessments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- The Falls Champions Networks were re-launched in January 2023 as part of the Trust’s Physical Health Care meeting. Each ward have an identified registered member of staff who attend the meeting and feedback learning, changes in policy and practice developments in their local team. The Champions will also support the implementation of the revised falls policy once approved and will audit clinical records to ensure patient’s falls risk assessments are updated.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University
    Page 3 · response
    Published 7 March 2023

    Open published response
  4. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Bridget GORMLEY · 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

    Bridget Gormley fell at her care home in Worcester on 20 July 2022 and was found to have significant traumatic intracranial bleeding. She was transferred to Worcestershire Royal Hospital, where she died on 31 July 2022. The principal concerns were that her falls risk assessment and care plan were not updated after repeated falls, and that staff may not have understood their duties to update residents’ documentation.

    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 consider measures to mitigate residents’ increased falls risk

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) During the course of her evidence, the inquest heard that Mrs. Gormley had suffered four falls at Latimer Court between 31 March 2022 and 4 April 2022, and a further four falls between 12 July 2022 and 17 July 2022. Latimer Court’s registered home manager, ████████, conceded in her evidence that neither Mrs. Gormley’s Falls Risk Assessment document, nor her Falls Care plan document were updated following any of these falls, and that they should have been so updated. This meant that: (a) Staff at Latimer Court who were looking after Mrs. Gormley may not have been aware that she presented an increased risk of suffering a fall; and (b) Measures to mitigate that increased risk were not considered. Such measures could have included: (i) Asking a GP to refer Mrs. Gormley to the falls clinic; (ii) Placing a sensor mat by her bed or chair, to alert staff to when she was mobilising; (iii) Referring her to Occupational Therapy for mobility aids such as a walking stick or frame; (iv) Briefing staff at Latimer Court to intervene whenever Mrs. Gormley was seen mobilising by herself, and to offer her assistance. (2) ████████ was unable to explain why these important documents had not been updated as they should have been by staff at Latimer Court. There is therefore concern that staff at Latimer Court did not, and may still not understand their duties and responsibilities to update residents’ documentation in such circumstances. ”

    Source location

    Bridget GORMLEY · 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 update residents’ falls risk assessment and care plan documentation following falls

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) During the course of her evidence, the inquest heard that Mrs. Gormley had suffered four falls at Latimer Court between 31 March 2022 and 4 April 2022, and a further four falls between 12 July 2022 and 17 July 2022. Latimer Court’s registered home manager, ████████, conceded in her evidence that neither Mrs. Gormley’s Falls Risk Assessment document, nor her Falls Care plan document were updated following any of these falls, and that they should have been so updated. This meant that: (a) Staff at Latimer Court who were looking after Mrs. Gormley may not have been aware that she presented an increased risk of suffering a fall; and (b) Measures to mitigate that increased risk were not considered. Such measures could have included: (i) Asking a GP to refer Mrs. Gormley to the falls clinic; (ii) Placing a sensor mat by her bed or chair, to alert staff to when she was mobilising; (iii) Referring her to Occupational Therapy for mobility aids such as a walking stick or frame; (iv) Briefing staff at Latimer Court to intervene whenever Mrs. Gormley was seen mobilising by herself, and to offer her assistance. (2) ████████ was unable to explain why these important documents had not been updated as they should have been by staff at Latimer Court. There is therefore concern that staff at Latimer Court did not, and may still not understand their duties and responsibilities to update residents’ documentation in such circumstances. ”

    Source location

    Bridget GORMLEY · 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

    Amend monthly clinical governance meetings to review each resident’s falls and falls history.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “entered onto the clinical governance system within 24 hours. To address this, we have amended our monthly clinical governance meeting requirements to include a review of falls for any one individual and their falls history. These meetings are minuted and require discussion of residents having a fall or found on the floor in line with Barchester’s Falls Management Policy to ensure that all measures are in place to mitigate the risk of further falls and that the relevant Healthcare Professionals and equipment is accessed and utilised. We have also introduced a regional falls champion forum, chaired by our Divisional clinical lead nurses. This will have an emphasis on prevention but also include reviews of individuals who have fallen, and the documentation required to support them and plan for their needs.”

    Source location

    Response from Barchester Healthcare
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 April 2023

    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

    Introduce a regional falls champion forum chaired by divisional clinical lead nurses.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “entered onto the clinical governance system within 24 hours. To address this, we have amended our monthly clinical governance meeting requirements to include a review of falls for any one individual and their falls history. These meetings are minuted and require discussion of residents having a fall or found on the floor in line with Barchester’s Falls Management Policy to ensure that all measures are in place to mitigate the risk of further falls and that the relevant Healthcare Professionals and equipment is accessed and utilised. We have also introduced a regional falls champion forum, chaired by our Divisional clinical lead nurses. This will have an emphasis on prevention but also include reviews of individuals who have fallen, and the documentation required to support them and plan for their needs.”

    Source location

    Response from Barchester Healthcare
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 April 2023

    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

    Update the organisational Falls Management Policy and share the update with Latimer Court’s senior care team.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(e) Barchester’s Director of Nursing has undertaken a review of policies, processes and procedures in relation to falls and falls management. The Barchester Healthcare policy for Falls Management has been subsequently updated and this update has been shared by the General Manager of Latimer Court with the home team, specifically the senior care team whose responsibility it is to manage falls.”

    Source location

    Response from Barchester Healthcare
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 April 2023

    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 and introduce a Post Falls Assessment Tool covering injury assessment, observations and escalation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(f) Barchester Healthcare have also now developed and introduced a specific Post Falls Assessment Tool to aid with the assessment of a resident following a fall or found on floor incident. This assessment process explores pain, any bruising or wounds and any changes in limb movement or walking. It also makes clear the process and frequency of observations and escalation should there be a change from a resident’s baseline.”

    Source location

    Response from Barchester Healthcare
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 April 2023

    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

    Deliver refresher training at Latimer Court on the Falls Management Policy and post-fall risk-review procedures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(k) As part of lessons learnt it is recognised by the General Manager at Latimer Court that staff require further training on the Barchester Falls Management Policy. If staff had followed the policy in this case, they would have followed the prompts to ensure that every aspect of the risk review was undertaken along with the immediate action following a fall or found on the floor incident. This includes consideration of the environmental orientation tool which should be completed preadmission and on admission and revisited following a fall. The Managing and Regional Directors have therefore made arrangements for further refresher training to be delivered at Latimer Court with follow up by the Regional Director and Quality Assurance Team. This will take place with the documentation training over the next 6 weeks and will be repeated as necessary.”

    Source location

    Response from Barchester Healthcare
    Page 4 · response
    Published 14 April 2023

    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 Latimer Court checklists or prompts with the Clinical Development Nurse in line with the Falls Management Policy.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Any checklists or prompts to be used at Latimer Court by the home team will be developed in liaison with the Clinical Development Nurse and will follow the requirements of the Falls Management Policy as to actions to be taken. As part of the training staff will be required to review the environment in which the residents live, practice writing risk assessments and consider how residents needs and risks may change and to develop professional curiosity about residents’ presentation and any referrals and actions that should flow from a falls incident.”

    Source location

    Response from Barchester Healthcare
    Page 4 · response
    Published 14 April 2023

    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

    Deliver refresher training at Latimer Court on completing documentation, including risk-related detail and timely updates.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(j) As part of the lessons learnt as identified by the General Manager at Latimer Court it was highlighted that staff required further training from the organisation’s Clinical Development Nurse in the approach to and completion of documentation. Specifically, when to complete documentation and the requisite detail to be included in the entries into documentation. Following completion of the inquest and receipt of the Regulation 28 Report, the Managing and Regional Directors have made arrangements for further refresher training to be delivered at Latimer Court with follow up by the Regional Manager and Quality”

    Source location

    Response from Barchester Healthcare
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 April 2023

    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 identified practice matters were unlikely to have affected the resident’s outcome.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following this very sad incident we have made a number of changes to the provision of care and services at Latimer Court, and these have been adopted across the organisation in other services and divisions where appropriate. For the purpose of this response, we have considered the concerns raised by you and where possible we have grouped together details of assurance measures where these appear to deal with more than one area of concern. Whilst it is unlikely that the matters referred to below would have affected the outcome for Mrs Gormley, there are matters of practice identified where the need for improvement has been recognised and dealt with.”

    Source location

    Response from Barchester Healthcare
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 April 2023

    Open published response
  5. Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

    AI-generated summary

    Anthony David Blower · 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

    Anthony David Blower died at home on 25 October 2020 after sustaining multiple falls, bilateral subdural haematoma and further bleeding following hospital admission and surgery. The concerns identified included nursing care-plan risk assessments not being updated, poor documentation, and inadequate oversight of hydration, with Mr Blower becoming seriously dehydrated during his admission.

    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 update nursing care plan risk assessments in response to changes in clinical presentation and falls

    Wider context from the report

    “1) Evidence at inquest revealed that none of the nursing care plan risk assessments, which had been completed on Mr Blower’s arrival on the ward, had been updated during his stay. I heard evidence that there are changes to his clinical presentation that were recorded in the nursing notes and that these should have been reflected in updated risk assessments. The multi factorial falls risk assessment had not been fully updated after an in-patient fall by Mr Blower. The evidence I heard from the nursing staff was that they are potentially missing opportunities for nursing interventions when risk assessments are not updated and that they do not always have the time to review the nursing notes. I note that the hospital is carrying out audits of documentation completion and updating some systems. However, some 2 years after the death of Mr Blower, the ward manager stated in evidence that her reviews of care plans showed a huge variety in the level of completion and that records with documentation remained poor. The hospital witnesses noted that staff were under significant time pressure and completing documentation is not seen as a priority. ”

    Source location

    Anthony David Blower · 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

    Continue ward accreditation assessments, including care-plan and patient-record reviews, feedback, action planning and governance reporting.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The trust is in a transitional period with many of our systems moving over to digital formats. This hybrid system makes auditing more challenging in the short term, but I would like to provide you with assurance that auditing does continue, in a variety of ways.”

    Source location

    Response from Portsmouth Hospitals University
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 January 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing ward accreditation and clinical audit processes are considered sufficient to address nursing documentation and care-plan completion concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The trust is in a transitional period with many of our systems moving over to digital formats. This hybrid system makes auditing more challenging in the short term, but I would like to provide you with assurance that auditing does continue, in a variety of ways.”

    Source location

    Response from Portsmouth Hospitals University
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 January 2023

    Open published response
  6. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Ghulam Mohammad · 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

    Ghulam Mohammad, an 89-year-old man, was admitted to hospital after an unwitnessed fall and later sustained a head injury in a further hospital fall. His CT head was delayed for four days, and enoxaparin was prescribed and administered before the extent of any intracranial injury was known. The report also identifies inadequate record keeping and omissions in the initial investigation and consultant statement concerning the use of enoxaparin.

    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 prevent falls among high-risk hospital patients

    Wider context from the report

    “1. A patient with a high risk of falls sustained a fatal injury in an avoidable fall in hospital. ”

    Source location

    Ghulam Mohammad · 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

    Seek assurance from Trust leadership that patient-safety changes address fall prevention and staff training for prompt action after head injuries.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I am writing to the Trust Chief Executive and the Chief Medical Officer seeking assurance that they do implement the changes to ensure patient safety is maintained both in preventing falls, but also ensuring staff have training to know when to act promptly should a head injury occur.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 21 November 2022

    Open published response
  7. Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

    AI-generated summary

    Seth Curtis Palminder · 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

    Seth Curtis Palminder died instantly on 6 February 2022 after falling from a road bridge and being struck by southbound vehicles. The report states that he had recently been discharged from mental health care, had taken overdoses of prescribed medication, and impulsively jumped from the bridge intending to take his own life. Concerns included inadequate bridge safety measures, a lack of means to summon help or access mental health support, insufficient CCTV monitoring, and repeated previous crisis incidents and fatalities at the location.

    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

    Insufficient measures to prevent deaths from jumping from bridges

    Wider context from the report

    “6. Deaths continue to occur as a result of individuals jumping from these bridges and insufficient measures have so far been taken to address and prevent their occurrence. ”

    Source location

    Seth Curtis Palminder · 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

    Engage specialist teams and agencies to assess whether interventions are warranted when similar risks are identified on County Council highway bridges.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For your information and reassurance, the County Council has its own highway bridge assets, and where similar risks have been identified highway officers have routinely engaged with other specialist teams and agencies e.g. Hampshire County Council’s Public Health team, the NHS etc, to determine whether an intervention by the Highway Authority is warranted. The County Council will also review and consider advice and guidance from relevant charity organisations, or special-interest groups, that specialise in mental health matters.”

    Source location

    Response from Hampshire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 October 2022

    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 the location to the South East Network Needs list for future funding prioritisation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 October 2022

    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

    Apply for future funding for a study into preventing future suicide events at the location.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 October 2022

    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

    National Highways, as bridge asset owner, must essentially consider the required action, while the County Council can collaborate on potential solutions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The bridge at ████████ over the A3(████████) is owned, managed, and maintained by National Highways and forms part of the Strategic Road Network. This would apply to all the overbridges along the A3(████████) corridor, regardless of their primary usage. The ████████ bridge carries a public bridleway which is managed by the County Council’s Countryside Service, as a right-of-way, and they have confirmed that it is mainly used by pedestrians and cyclists.”

    Source location

    Response from Hampshire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 October 2022

    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 existing 1.65-metre parapet complies with current standards, and enclosing the walkway is not considered appropriate because enclosed spaces can increase antisocial behaviour.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The location is fitted with a parapet that met the required standards set out in The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) at the time of construction in 1971 and remains compliant with current standards (DMRB CD 377 Requirements for road restraint systems). This parapet measures 1.65m high, providing a protective barrier. Although historically some structures have been enclosed for a number of reasons, including for suicide prevention or to prevent items being thrown onto the carriageway below, this is not something that highway authorities do now as the enclosed space often sees a rise in antisocial behaviour and criminal activity.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 October 2022

    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

    Further measures, including CCTV or physical barriers, depend on a funded study establishing their suitability and securing future funding.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 October 2022

    Open published response
  8. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Kenneth Goodwin · 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 Goodwin was admitted to hospital with severe abdominal pain and was being treated for sepsis from gall stones and cholecystitis. After being transferred between wards at night, he fell before a falls risk assessment had been completed on the new ward, developed an acute subdural haematoma, and died on 9 June 2022. Concerns included the lack of required written confirmation of falls-risk handover, the delay in completing the new ward’s falls risk assessment, and inconsistent use of visual falls-risk signs on beds.

    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

    Inconsistent use of bed signs to identify falls risk to staff

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The Inquest heard that the use of signs on beds to visually identify falls risk to the staff is not consistently used. ”

    Source location

    Kenneth Goodwin · 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

    Delays in completing falls-risk assessments after transfer to a new ward

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The falls risk assessment on the new ward was not completed for just over 4.5 hours. The Inquest heard that the target time for this assessment is within 6 hours, a length of time which is of concern for patients transferred at night, displaying signs of confusion, and already identified as a fall risk. ”

    Source location

    Kenneth Goodwin · 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

    Relaunch the maple leaf sign requirement across the Trust through weekly bulletin and targeted governance-team emails.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Action – The requirement for the use of the maple leaf sign, identifying patients at risk of falls, was re-launched across the Trust on 15 November 2022, via the Trust’s ‘Risky Business’ weekly bulletin and also via targeted e-mails from the divisions governance teams. The requirement for the use of the maple leaf sign will also be added on all agency staff induction check lists to ensure that their use is explained to staff who are new to the organisation. Completion of the checklists is already included within the audit programme.”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 October 2022

    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 maple leaf sign use to agency staff induction checklists.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Action – The requirement for the use of the maple leaf sign, identifying patients at risk of falls, was re-launched across the Trust on 15 November 2022, via the Trust’s ‘Risky Business’ weekly bulletin and also via targeted e-mails from the divisions governance teams. The requirement for the use of the maple leaf sign will also be added on all agency staff induction check lists to ensure that their use is explained to staff who are new to the organisation. Completion of the checklists is already included within the audit programme.”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 October 2022

    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 six-hour assessment standard is retained because it allows admission and accurate documentation, while formal handover provides immediate risk communication.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust can confirm that there is a six hour standard for risk assessments to be completed following transfer of a patient to a ward. This window allows the receiving team to admit the patient into their care, undertake”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 October 2022

    Open published response
  9. Dorset

    AI-generated summary

    Gerald Kenneth Tuck · 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

    Gerald Kenneth Tuck, who had dementia and lived in a residential home, sustained repeated falls in December 2021 and January 2022. After the final fall, he was diagnosed with two acute subdural haematomas, his condition deteriorated, and he died on 2 March 2022. The concern was that the home had no written policy or guidance requiring care plans and falls risk assessments to be reviewed after incidents.

    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 and record falls risk assessments after falls

    Wider context from the report

    “iv. The Registered Manager of Sidney Gale House gave evidence that his last falls risk assessment is documented to have taken place on the 16th December 2021. There is no evidence one was completed after this prior to the fatal fall on the 28th January 2022. The monthly review was due on the 31st January 2022 and there was no assessment recorded after the falls on the 25th December 2021 and 27th January 2022. ”

    Source location

    Gerald Kenneth Tuck · 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

    Upload the post-falls assessment tool to the electronic recording system for staff use and recording.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To mitigate further risks we have uploaded the post falls assessment tool to the electronic recording system that is used to ensure staff do see, follow and record on this.”

    Source location

    Response from Tricuro
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 October 2022

    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

    Disseminate the updated falls policy across the service and wider company, including requirements to update risk assessments and mobility care plans after falls.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our policy also reflects that staff are expected to update the falls risk assessments and mobility care plans after any fall to ensure that the care, support and risks are managed accordingly. We have ensured that all staff within the service and the wider company are very clear of the policy and that this must be followed.”

    Source location

    Response from Tricuro
    Page 3 · response
    Published 3 October 2022

    Open published response
  10. Avon

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Gerwyn John REES · 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 Gerwyn John REES, who was elderly and frail, was admitted to hospital after experiencing falls and was assessed as requiring low-risk enhanced care observations. He fell twice on 29 November 2020, fracturing his hip, and later died in January 2021 following surgery, as a result of general frailty and the hip injury. The principal concerns were the initial low-risk falls assessment, inadequate steps to prevent the fall, and an apparent lack of learning and investigative rigour following his death.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to allocate the appropriate ECO observation level following falls risk assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “• I find it very difficult to see how Mr REES could properly have been allocated to level 2 ECO observations (“low risk”) at the time of his initial falls risk assessment on 29 November 2020 • However, notwithstanding that initial concern on my part, I am more concerned by the apparent absence of learning following Mr REES’s death • The Trust’s Root Cause Analysis (‘RCA’) investigation/report (co-authored by ████████ a Matron / Senior Nurse) does not identify any issue or concern in respect of that initial allocation to ECO level 2 • Further – during the inquest – when I questioned the nurse who had approved the initial “Level 2” allocation on Ward A413 ████████ she initially maintained that ECO Level 2 was appropriate for Mr REES at that time, before later conceding to me that he should have been allocated to Level 3 observations from the outset and that ECO Level 2 was not an appropriate categorisation for him at the time of his initial falls risk assessment • When I then questioned ████████ (RCA co-author) about this same point, she too initially gave evidence that ECO Level 2 was a reasonable categorisation for Mr REES during the initial falls risk assessment, applying “clinical judgement” (albeit that she later accepted – I think – that it had not been an appropriate categorisation at that time) • I struggle to see how, as a senior nurse with responsibility for investigating an incident such as this and disseminating learning as a result of it, Nurse ████████ can have suggested to me that ECO 2 was ever appropriate for Mr REES • The lack of criticism of Mr REES’s initial risk allocation to ECO level 2 in the RCA report, coupled with these aspects of the live evidence of Nurse ████████ and Matron ████████ (see above) suggest to me that there was a lack of investigative rigour in the RCA reporting process, and/or that the ECO Policy was (and is) not properly understood by the staff involved in authoring the RCA, or in implementing the policy • Whilst it is relatively commonplace to see circumstances in which policies or standard operating procedures have not been properly understood or implemented on a ward, in real time, it is more concerning still to see circumstances such as these; in which even after the Trust’s investigation and learning process have been completed there does not appear to be an appreciation of where mistakes have been made: this of course means that there has been a missed opportunity to learn from the death in question • For completeness, I do not think that I am wrong in my interpretation of the ECO Policy, but if I am, and if – following that policy properly – a patient with a background such as Mr REES could properly be described as at “low risk” and requiring only the protection that is afforded by ECO level 2, then I would be very concerned that the policy itself was not fit for purpose, or safe. ”

    Source location

    Mr Gerwyn John REES · 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

    Implement the revised Enhanced Care Observation and Meaningful Activities Policy with non-numbered observation categories and holistic patient-needs guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a direct result of this case, we have reconsidered our Enhanced Care Observation (ECO) and Meaningful Activities Policy and are in the process of implementing a revised policy to take on board our learning from this case. It is expected that this updated policy will be in place by November 2022. The updated policy removes the levels of 1, 2, 3, and 4 for ECO, which sometimes causes confusion amongst practitioners and replaces the levels for all inpatients requiring observations with:”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospital Bristol and Weston
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 September 2022

    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

    Strengthen the Enhanced Care Observation policy with North Bristol NHS Trust partners.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition, to provide equitable and consistent care for all our patients, we will look at strengthening the ECO policy along with our partners in North Bristol NHS Trust.”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospital Bristol and Weston
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 September 2022

    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 affected staff groups with support, education, training, ward signs, meaningful-activities resources and task kits after policy approval.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Once the updated policy has been approved, key staff groups affected by the ECO policy will be provided support, education, and training in applying the policy in practice. This will include display signs in ward areas, a meaningful activities list and task kits, and additional training to the ECO team from the dementia, delirium and falls team.”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospital Bristol and Weston
    Page 3 · response
    Published 30 September 2022

    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 patient’s admission presentation did not trigger higher observation because he was calm, oriented, engaged, and able to follow instructions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have reflected on the Root Cause Analysis carried out in this case with particular regard to the concerns you have raised. When assessing the falls risk for new patients admitted to hospital, we consider many aspects including their past medical history, reason for admission, and the presentation of the patient at that time. In Mr Rees’ case he was assessed on admission and assigned ECO level 2. At the time of presentation Mr Rees was found to be alert, orientated, not agitated, and calm. Mr Rees was able to hold a coherent conversation and was able to understand instructions to sit and wait for help to assist him to mobilise. Mr Rees was not putting himself at risk e.g., he was not attempting to mobilise on his own. We recognised that Mr Rees was an elderly gentleman with a history of previous falls and underlying mental health and medical health issues.”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospital Bristol and Weston
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 September 2022

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026