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. South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Paul Littlewood · 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

    Paul Littlewood fell from the gantry of a walking floor trailer while unsheeting it and died the following day from head injuries. Concerns included inadequate barriers and fall protection, the absence of a toe-plate, and the lack of safer or self-closing access protection and a ground-level fall-arrest system.

    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 the access-ladder fall protection to prevent falls

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The gantry was accessible by means of a fixed ladder. At the top of the ladder, fall protection is provided by a single cable which is set at a height well below 1 metre. It provides a pivot for a fall, rather than fall prevention. ”

    Source location

    Paul Littlewood · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Mrs. Evelyn KENNEDY · 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. Evelyn KENNEDY was an 89-year-old woman who died in hospital on 29 October 2014 after admission following recurrent falls. The inquest concluded that she died of hospital-acquired pneumonia and that her death was probably accelerated by a short time because of the effects of her five-day admission to the Acute Medical Unit. Concerns included incomplete handover and poor personal care, missing identification and risk bands, inadequate monitoring and documentation, missed medication and nutritional support, and failures to escalate clinical deterioration.

    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 falls-risk wristbands for patients at risk of falling

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Once again my concerns involve the Acute Medical Unit (AMU). (2) Mrs. KENNEDY was transferred from AMU in a chair, not a trolley. (3) Handover was incomplete and unhelpful. (4) She arrived unkempt. (5) She had porridge leaking from her mouth; it took 20 mouth sponges to give her adequate mouth care. (6) She felt cold and said she was cold. (7) She had been incontinent of faeces and had not been cleaned for some time. (8) She had no name wrist band. (9) In spite of known allergies she had no allergy wrist band. (10) In spite of falling regularly she had no falls risk wrist band. (11) She still had an IV cannula in place; this should have been removed after 72 hours. (12) Her daily catheter care bundle had not been completed for 3 days. (13) She had no fluid charts for 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th. (14) Care plans were not completed for 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th. (15) Repositioning charts were incomplete or poor for 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th. (16) The handling assessment was not completed for 16th, 18th, 19th or 20th. (17) No food chart was completed for her entire time in AMU. (18) She had pressure damage to her hips and bottom. (19) No daily oral assessment was completed for her entire time on AMU. (20) She was not weighed. (21) The malnutrition tool was not completed. (22) Her bowel movements were not recorded. (24) NEWS scores of 4 to 9 had not been escalated to doctors nor filled in on her drug chart. PLUS (25) No personal care over the weekend of 18th and 19th. (26) No senior review over that weekend. (27) Not written up for her Sertraline, therefore not given (28) Not written up for any food supplements until 21st October. (29) She should have been specialled, but wasn’t. Once again AMU has been found to be chaotic and not fit for purpose. ”

    Source location

    Mrs. Evelyn KENNEDY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. Powys, Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys

    AI-generated summary

    Howell Glyndwr Fisher · 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

    Howell Glyndwr Fisher fell at home, sustained a fractured hip, and later died in hospital on 9 December 2014 after developing an ischemic leg, pneumonia and other health problems. The concerns included at least five falls while he was assessed as being at high risk, insufficient staffing to provide required one-to-one nursing, and inadequate handover and falls-risk assessments between and within hospitals.

    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 carry out falls risk assessments on readmission and after successive falls

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) There was no “handover material” at the point of transfer between the two hospitals detailing that he was at high risk of falls and further more on readmission to the Princess of Wales Hospital on the 20th November no falls risk assessment was carried out – indeed, after each successive fall in the Princess of Wales Hospital no formal assessment appears to have been undertaken. Throughout he remained at high risk of falls. ”

    Source location

    Howell Glyndwr Fisher · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  4. Powys, Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys

    AI-generated summary

    Robert Henry Payne · 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

    Robert Henry Payne was admitted to hospital after falling at home and fracturing his left neck of femur. While in hospital, he experienced repeated falls, including one that dislocated the repaired hip and necessitated further surgery; the reported concerns included falls despite high-risk assessments and a ward transfer without an apparent transfer document, followed by a fall that was not witnessed. He later developed an infected surgical wound and died on 13 July 2014.

    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 patients identified as being at high risk of falling

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Despite repeated falls risk assessments identifying the deceased as being at high risk of falling he fell on no less than four occasions whilst in hospital which necessitated further surgery as a direct consequence of the fall on the 20th May 2014. (2) He was transferred between wards at 1am in the morning in circumstances in which it appears no transfer document was completed and fell in circumstances in which the fall was not witnessed. ”

    Source location

    Robert Henry Payne · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    John Lowe · 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

    John Lowe was an inpatient receiving mental health assessment and care after suffering a stroke. After a series of falls, his final fall on 18 February 2014 caused a fractured left neck of femur, which materially contributed to his death from bronchopneumonia on 26 February 2014. Concerns related to nursing staff beliefs that 1:1 nursing could not be provided solely for falls risk or physical care needs.

    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

    Inaccurate nursing staff belief that 1:1 nursing care is unavailable for falls risk or physical care needs

    Wider context from the report

    “1. That there was a belief amongst members of the Trust’s nursing staff that they were unable as a matter of policy to provide 1:1 nursing care for a patient in respect of that patient’s falls risk assessment alone, no matter what that assessment might be. 2. That there was a belief amongst members of the Trust’s nursing staff that 1:1 nursing could only be provided on the basis of a patient’s particular mental health needs, and not in respect of his or her physical care needs. ”

    Source location

    John Lowe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. Newcastle Upon Tyne

    AI-generated summary

    Olive Nugent · 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

    Olive Nugent fell down the stairs at home on 16 December 2014 and her falls detector activated, but no warden attended for 2 hours and 27 minutes. She sustained an unsurvivable brain injury and died. The principal concerns were delayed and subjective prioritisation of responses, insufficient staffing, and the risk to people who were unable to respond verbally through the device.

    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

    Subjective prioritisation of response to falls detection device activation

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mrs Nugent lay critically injured in her home for 2 hours and 27 minutes without assistance or access to medical treatment. (2) Her falls activator device had activated automatically indicating that she had fallen. (3) Her inability to respond verbally to call handlers via the device was a crucial factor in the decision not to prioritise her case. (4) Priority was given to clients whose devices had activated in some cases at a time later than Mrs Nugent's but who had been able to verbally respond to call handlers via their devices. (5) The prioritising of response to device activation is entirely subjective and heavily dependent upon (a) staffing levels and (b) the personal practices of individual team leaders. (6) On 16th December 2014 there were insufficient staff to meet the demand for assistance. This contributed to the delayed response to Mrs Nugent's needs. (7) A review of the Guidance to be adopted when responding to device activation was undertaken following Mrs Nugent's death. (8) The Policy Document entitled "Mobile Response Time Targets, Prioritising Mobile Response and Escalation Process", however, reaffirms that prioritisation of response remains a subjective process. A proposed escalation process in the event of demand exceeding the capacity of available staff is dependent upon other agencies whose availability is not guaranteed or the subject of any Memorandum of Understanding. (9) The provision of Falls Detection Devices is intended to ensure timely aid and assistance including medical treatment of injuries if required to vulnerable persons in the event of a fall. (10)Further deaths could potentially occur in the future; particularly in cases of persons injured and unable to respond verbally to call handlers. (11)Review of the Guidance and Policy Document and staffing levels is necessary to reduce this risk. ”

    Source location

    Olive Nugent · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Emmeline Hampson · 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

    Emmeline Hampson died in hospital on 6 November 2014 after a fall at her nursing home caused a subdural haematoma and intracerebral bleeding. The concerns included repeated falls without review of her falls risk assessment or referral back to the Falls Service, inadequate procedures and record keeping, shortcomings in alarm audibility and differentiation, and insufficient training of 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

    Omissions in documentation and record keeping of falls and changes in residents’ condition

    Wider context from the report

    “iv. There were omissions in the documentation and record keeping at the Nursing Home particularly in relation to falls, and changes in Mrs Hampson’s condition, which were witnessed by members of her family on a daily basis. ”

    Source location

    Emmeline Hampson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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 review falls risk assessments and refer recurrent falls back to the Falls Service

    Wider context from the report

    “ii. From the 4th October 2014 there were five falls including the fall on the 4th October 2014 and culminating in the fall on the 29th October 2014. There was no review of the falls risk assessment and no referral back to the Falls Service following any one of the falls between the 4th October 2014 and the 29th October 2014 even though Mrs Hampson’s condition had changed and there were recurrent falls. ”

    Source location

    Emmeline Hampson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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 alarm signals to distinguish falls-sensor activation from handheld-buzzer requests for assistance

    Wider context from the report

    “v. The alarm in relation to the activation of the falls sensor placed in Mrs Hampson’s room and the handheld buzzer available to Mrs Hampson were the same so that it was not possible to distinguish between activation of the falls sensor arising from Mrs Hampson getting out of bed and Mrs Hampson requesting assistance from a carer, which may simply relate to a request for a drink. ”

    Source location

    Emmeline Hampson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Thomas Luke-Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    Thomas Luke-Taylor, who had suffered a stroke, fell from his bed while in the Stroke Rehabilitation Ward at Bishop Auckland General Hospital, sustained a head injury and subsequently died. Concerns were raised about incorrect falls-risk assessments, inadequate supervision of a student nurse, and whether certain patients such as stroke patients should be presumed to be at increased risk of falls unless there were good reasons otherwise.

    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 a presumption of increased falls risk for certain classes of patients in falls risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “In evidence the Matron was asked whether it might be preferable for the falls risk assessment form to give a presumption that certain classes of patients (for example stroke patients) were at increased risk of falls and should be considered as such unless there were good reasons to the contrary. It was her view that this would not be good practice as each and every patient should be assessed on an individual basis. Whilst that is a laudable outlook it was put to her that if there had been such a presumption then the misclassification by the original staff nurse and by the student nurse might have been avoided and this could lead either in this case or in other cases to a potentially different outcome. The matron's view was that freedom of assessment was nevertheless best practice. I indicated my concern over this issue as to whether there should be a presumption in certain cases of an increased risk of falls and that consideration of this issue would be useful. ”

    Source location

    Thomas Luke-Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  9. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Maria Silkin · 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

    Maria Silkin fell at a care home on or about 2 September 2014, broke her hip, was taken to hospital a week later, underwent surgery, and subsequently developed pneumonia. The concerns were that her falls history was inaccurately recorded as showing no previous falls and that this contributed to a delay in taking her to hospital.

    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 accurately record previous falls in falls risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “1. During the course of the evidence the Care Home produced a document entitled “Falls Risk Assessment”. In part of that document it was indicated that the “falls history” showed there had been no previous falls whereas I had already heard evidence which was not challenged, to the effect that she had previously fallen numerous times. 2. Because of the above, the action to take her to hospital was, in my opinion, delayed. ”

    Source location

    Maria Silkin · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  10. Exeter and Greater Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Robert Alan JONES · 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

    Robert Alan JONES suffered multiple falls following a stroke and later deteriorated, dying at South Molton Community Hospital on 1 April 2014. The inquest recorded accidental death, with acute on chronic subdural haematoma and multiple falls due to cerebrovascular accidents. Concerns included inadequate communication about the total number of falls, use of an out-of-date post-falls checklist, and incomplete or incorrectly recorded neurological observations.

    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 communicate the patient's total number of falls to all visiting staff

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There was no evidence of communication to ensure that all staff including the different GPs visiting, were aware of the total number of falls the patient has sustained. An out of date post falls checklist was used which does not include specific details of the frequency in duration of neurological observations as recommended by NICE, where head injury has occurred and can or cannot be ruled out and the patient did not always have his neurological observations recorded as per the minimum recommended. They were not always recorded correctly on the observation charts. ”

    Source location

    Robert Alan JONES · 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

    Revise and publish the falls policy and post-falls checklist to specify NICE-based neurological observation frequency and duration after suspected or confirmed head injury.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(1) Revise the Trust’s falls policy to include the recommended frequency and duration of neurological observations based on NICE guidance for patients where head injury has occurred or cannot be ruled out, and inclusion of relevant history of falls in handovers of care.”

    Source location

    2015-0018-Response-by-Northern-Devon-Healthcare-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 21 January 2015

    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

    Require falls risk and falls information in bedside handovers and safety briefings, with observational audits, feedback, and re-audit of information-sharing gaps.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust’s falls policy (enclosed) has been revised to include information relating to the frequency and duration of neurological observations (in line with the relevant NICE guidelines) and published on the Trust’s policy website. The Trust’s policy includes a post falls checklist (enclosed) which details how often and for how long neurological observations should be recorded. The Trust’s bedside handover and safety briefing standard operating procedure clearly identifies information relating to patient falls (including their risk of falls) is a key component in shift to shift communication, and must be included in handover. Bedside handovers are audited via observation and reports and actions provided to wards and teams where there are gaps in information being shared. Improvement is measured by re-audit.”

    Source location

    2015-0018-Response-by-Northern-Devon-Healthcare-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 21 January 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement filing of post-falls checklists with physiological and neurological observation charts for daily multidisciplinary team review of patients’ multiple falls.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As per (1), this information is included in safety briefings, which are multi-disciplinary events. Additionally, the Trust’s post falls checklist allows staff to record multiple falls on the same document, ensuring that information relating to falls is held in a central place. The trust is implementing a system that requires the post falls checklist to be filed with the patient’s physiological observations / neurological observations chart, which is reviewed by the Multi Disciplinary Team on a daily basis.”

    Source location

    2015-0018-Response-by-Northern-Devon-Healthcare-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 21 January 2015

    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

    Issue and disseminate a Trust-wide Patient Safety Alert covering neurological observations, post-falls checklist completion and filing, and inclusion of falls information in briefings and handovers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To support the actions detailed above, the Trust will issue a Patient Safety Alert, which will communicate the need for neurological observations when a head injury has occurred or cannot be ruled out, completion of the post falls checklist, to include the frequency and duration of observations, to ensure the post falls checklist is filed with the patient’s observation chart for ease of access for all Multi-Disciplinary Team members, and to ensure that information relating to falls risk or actual falls is included in safety briefings and bedside handover. Patient Safety Alerts are disseminated across the whole Trust to clinical and managerial leads.”

    Source location

    2015-0018-Response-by-Northern-Devon-Healthcare-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 21 January 2015

    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 recommended safety actions are primarily the responsibility of the hospital trust.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The recommended actions are primarily the responsibility of the hospital trust: I enclose a copy of their Action Plan which I have just received from ████████, Matron of South Molton Community Hospital and which I believe satisfactorily addresses all your concerns and recommended actions.”

    Source location

    2015-0068-Response-by-The-Health-Centre
    Page 1 · response
    Published 21 January 2015

    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 hospital trust’s action plan is considered to satisfactorily address all concerns and recommended actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The recommended actions are primarily the responsibility of the hospital trust: I enclose a copy of their Action Plan which I have just received from ████████, Matron of South Molton Community Hospital and which I believe satisfactorily addresses all your concerns and recommended actions.”

    Source location

    2015-0068-Response-by-The-Health-Centre
    Page 1 · response
    Published 21 January 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026