Recurring concern

Failure to maintain clear clinical responsibility for patient care

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 3 Jan 2014•Latest report 8 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of an explicitly clinical care responsibility arrangement in which clinicians or senior clinical staff do not retain, clearly assign or actively oversee responsibility for patient care, including during private hospital stays, community care and post-discharge care.

Not included

  • Excludes generic delegation or supervision failures not tied to responsibility for the patient’s overall clinical care.
  • Excludes administrative, incident-investigation or governance responsibility failures that do not concern ongoing clinical responsibility for patient care.
  • Excludes individual delays, omissions or treatment failures unless they arise from the failure to retain or clearly assign clinical responsibility.
Reports
39

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
42

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
54

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 Care9
NHS England5
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust4
Care Quality Commission3
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence2
NHS North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board2
Royal College of Surgeons of England2
South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust2
the Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2
49 Marine Avenue Surgery1
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges1
Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland)1
Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust1
Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust1
Barts Health NHS Trust1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Margaret Ann Waylett · 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

    Margaret Ann Waylett underwent surgery for a humerus fracture and developed ongoing low blood pressure and intermittent oxygen requirements. She later suffered a cardiac arrest and died in hospital after, according to the report, necessary medical intervention was not provided. Concerns included failures to provide medical reviews, lack of access to NEWS charts and confusion about responsibility for her care.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Confusion between doctors about responsibility for patients with dual orthopaedic and medical needs

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The inquest heard that there was confusion between the doctors as to who was responsible for the patient, in light of her dual orthopaedic and medical needs. Orthogeriatricians were aware of Mrs Waylett’s desaturation on 19 October 2022, but appeared to have considered it necessary for them to receive a referral from the orthopaedic team before they could carry out a review. ”

    Source location

    Margaret Ann Waylett · 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

    Display on-call doctors’ contact information in relevant clinical areas.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• A new process has been introduced, in which contact information for on call doctors is displayed in relevant clinical areas so that there is complete clarity about who should be contacted.”

    Source location

    Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 December 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 orthopaedic–orthogeriatric interface and define junior doctors’ roles and responsibilities for patient assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• The interaction and interface between the orthopaedic and orthogeriatric teams has been reviewed and updated, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding and that no patient who would benefit from a medical assessment is missed. Junior doctors in both teams have clear and defined roles and responsibilities designed to ensure patients get the attention that is needed. Any patient under the care of the Orthopaedic team for who there is a clinical concern is escalated to either the On call medical team or the Critical Care Outreach team and intensive care for support and further management.”

    Source location

    Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 December 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

    Escalate orthopaedic patients with clinical concerns to the on-call medical, Critical Care Outreach or intensive care teams for support and further management.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• The interaction and interface between the orthopaedic and orthogeriatric teams has been reviewed and updated, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding and that no patient who would benefit from a medical assessment is missed. Junior doctors in both teams have clear and defined roles and responsibilities designed to ensure patients get the attention that is needed. Any patient under the care of the Orthopaedic team for who there is a clinical concern is escalated to either the On call medical team or the Critical Care Outreach team and intensive care for support and further management.”

    Source location

    Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 December 2023

    Open published response
  2. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Sarah CHAPPELL · 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

    Sarah Chappell was transferred to University College London Hospital on 31 May 2023 and died there on 23 June 2023. The report identified concerns about delays in transfer, failure of the appropriate clinical team to take charge, inadequate pain relief and poor communication. It also identified inappropriate management of her nasogastric tube; the inquest concluded that her care was suboptimal and that, if the tube had been managed appropriately, she would have survived this episode.

    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 transfer care to the appropriate clinical specialty

    Wider context from the report

    “2. From at least 16 June 2023, the consultant urology surgeon in charge of Ms Chappell’s care was very firmly of the view that he was not the best clinician to fulfil this role. He had long since correctly determined that she had not sustained a ruptured bladder, and thus considered that her care belonged with the gastroenterologists or the general surgeons. Despite the agreement on 16 June of the gastroenterology clinical director that Ms Chappell’s care should be led by the gastroenterologists, they had not taken over her care by the time of her death, and there had not even been a conversation between the gastroenterology and general surgery consultants about the transfer of care. ”

    Source location

    Sarah CHAPPELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop and disseminate a urology referral form documenting transfer reasons, decisions, clinical priority, and coordination-centre notification.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Recognising that there was confusion between PRUH and UCLH relating to transfer we will develop a referral form for urology by May 2024 to improve documentation around the reason for transfer and agreed decisions to inform the plan of care. This will be led by the clinical lead for urology and will mirror some of our best practice referrals such as in the thoracic service.”

    Source location

    Response from University College London Hospitals
    Page 3 · response
    Published 19 December 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

    Review processes for allocating the named consultant, agreeing joint care, and escalating disagreements about care ownership.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We completely recognise that clearer processes both around joint care and escalation of decisions on ownership of care if there are disagreements are required. We will review our processes for allocating the named consultant in charge, agreeing joint care and escalation processes when there is disagreement over the named consultant by May 2024.”

    Source location

    Response from University College London Hospitals
    Page 4 · response
    Published 19 December 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

    UCLH disputes that gastroenterology had agreed to take over care, stating that specialist gastroenterology teams reviewed the patient instead.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For clarification, the clinical director for gastroenterology was not involved in discussions relating to Ms Chappell’s care at UCLH: this was undertaken by the clinical lead for gastroenterology.”

    Source location

    Response from University College London Hospitals
    Page 4 · response
    Published 19 December 2023

    Open published response
  3. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Johanne Blackwood · 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

    Johanne Blackwood, known as Jo, died by suicide on 12 June 2021 after placing herself in the path of a train. The report identified concerns about unclear Care Coordinator handovers and responsibility for oversight after discharge, the absence of an allocated Care Coordinator for several weeks, failure to update her risk assessment, care plan and security plan, and inappropriate over-reliance on family members to keep her safe.

    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 clarity about responsibility for oversight of patient care following discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Evidence confirmed a conspicuous lack of clarity as to who, amongst EPUT clinicians/staff, has the responsibility for oversight of patient care following discharge, including responsibility for ensuring adequate and appropriate safety-netting is in place in the event of relapse, where a Care Coordinator is no longer in place/has not been replaced. Please note that this 3ʳᵈ concern was previously raised by me with ████████ CEO of EPUT (and in very similar terms) in a PFDR dated 25.02.2022 following the death of Stephanie Moyce. ”

    Source location

    Johanne Blackwood · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement and use a Trust-wide electronic Care Coordinator to Care Coordinator Transfer of Care Document for structured handovers and continuity oversight.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As part of the Inquest hearing, it was recommended by yourself, as the presiding Coroner, that the operational management at Essex Partnership University Foundation Trust (EPUT) consider establishing a mechanism and process for a formal structured handover between care coordinators. The service manager took this recommendation on board and has been working with colleagues and departments to produce a purposeful template that will form part of the Patient Electronic Record specific to the care coordinators’ handover. This document has been approved, for implementation Trust wide, following a process of consultation and with comments gathered from all community services.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Fondation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 July 2023

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

    AI-generated summary

    Sara Anest 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

    Sara Anest Jones died at Royal Stoke University Hospital on 2 April 2021 from complications of a bowel injury sustained in a road traffic collision on 30 March 2021. The concerns included delayed and unconfirmed delivery of a CT radiology report between hospitals, failure to follow up signs of possible bowel injury, and the absence of a protocol for prompt and secure delivery of radiology reports in such circumstances.

    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 establish clear cross-specialty responsibility for review and escalation

    Wider context from the report

    “The patient was admitted to Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent as a “polytrauma” patient who had sustained serious injuries in a road traffic collision. Following her admission, she was treated by doctors from several different specialisms, but it was apparent that some doctors involved in her care concentrated on only the injuries which fell within their specialty and did not consider the patient as a whole. At an important stage in her treatment the general surgeons thought that the orthopaedic surgeons would alert them to any intervention which was needed from their specialty, whilst the orthopaedic surgeons expected the general surgeons to regularly review the patient. Partly as a result of doctors concentrating only on the injuries which fell within their specialty signs of a bowel injury which the patient had sustained were missed. The patient subsequently died as a result of complications of the undiagnosed bowel injury. Evidence was given during the inquest that a major trauma consultant role was in the process of being developed at the Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent to address issues like this, but that the role was only 50% filled at the current time. ”

    Source location

    Sara Anest JONES · 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

    Redefine the Major Trauma Service so the Major Trauma Consultant leads whole-patient review and liaises with specialty teams.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In order to fulfil this, an internal recruitment process has already been initiated. One additional consultant is now in post, and negotiations are underway with a further three consultants which will fill our Monday-Friday rota. We intend to have this rota staffed by the beginning of August 2023. Approval for the development of a business case is under consideration for the expansion of the Major Trauma service, to include weekend and out of hours cover. We intend to remove any potential confusion around team responsibilities by redefining the Major Trauma Service. This will mean that the Major Trauma Consultant is primarily responsible for the whole patient review and will liaise with specialty teams as appropriate. The timescale for this redesign is within the next 12 months.”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 April 2023

    Open published response
  5. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Stephanie Moyce · 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

    Stephanie Moyce, who had a history of mental health issues and repeated suicide attempts, took her own life on 30 July 2021 and was discovered by her partner. The report identified concerns about unclear responsibility for care and oversight after psychotherapy discharge, inadequate discharge planning and safety-netting, the lack of routine multidisciplinary discussion, and insufficient involvement of her carer in Section 117 after-care reviews.

    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 clarity about responsibility for formulating clear and comprehensive psychotherapy discharge plans

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Evidence confirmed a conspicuous lack of clarity as to who, amongst EPUT clinicians/staff, is responsible for ensuring that a clear and comprehensive discharge plan is formulated for those coming to the end of a course of psychotherapy where a Care Coordinator is no longer in place/has not been replaced; ”

    Source location

    Stephanie Moyce · 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

    Lack of clarity about responsibility for oversight of patient care following discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “2. Evidence confirmed a conspicuous lack of clarity as to who, amongst EPUT clinicians/staff has the responsibility for oversight of patient care following discharge, including responsibility for ensuring adequate and appropriate safety-netting is in place in the event of relapse, where a Care Coordinator is no longer in place/has not been replaced; ”

    Source location

    Stephanie Moyce · 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

    Lack of clarity about responsibility for post-discharge relapse safety-netting

    Wider context from the report

    “2. Evidence confirmed a conspicuous lack of clarity as to who, amongst EPUT clinicians/staff has the responsibility for oversight of patient care following discharge, including responsibility for ensuring adequate and appropriate safety-netting is in place in the event of relapse, where a Care Coordinator is no longer in place/has not been replaced; ”

    Source location

    Stephanie Moyce · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Nichola Jane Lomax · 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

    Nichola Jane Lomax had a long history of an eating disorder and attended hospital several times in 2020 with severe malnutrition and electrolyte imbalance. She died on 3 August 2020 after delays and failings involving hospital treatment, specialist referral, communication, monitoring, nutritional care and access to appropriate services. The report identified concerns about inadequate eating-dis disorder training, access to specialist advice, referral criteria, critical services, community monitoring, nursing care and investigation of deaths.

    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 clear responsibility for monitoring and co-ordinating community eating disorder care

    Wider context from the report

    “3) Referral Criteria for the Priory and Community Eating Disorder Service For GMMH, PRIORY, BURY CLINICAL COMMISSIONING, ICB In Greater Manchester the Community Eating Disorder Service (CEDS) do not accept patients who have a BMI of less than 14. The court heard this is in part due to the structure and commissioning of the service. Adherence to this criteria had the following implications for Nichola’s care: • As the only service who can refer to the Priory, CEDS became aware of Nichola. CEDS involvement created the impression that they were providing care to her. This created a confused picture as to who was co-ordinating her care. • This meant that monitoring of Nichola was undertaken by the GP practice who were not specialists and had limited knowledge of eating disorders. It would have been more clinically appropriate for CEDS to have taken on this role and the court heard that in many other areas of the country the CEDS accept patients with BMIs lower than 14 and have responsibility for the monitoring and co-ordination of patients. The Court heard evidence from a number of practitioners as to their understanding of the referral criteria for Nichola to be admitted to The Priory. The clear impression given by The Priory was that Nichola would not be accepted until 1) a bed became available but also 2) her BMI increased to somewhere around 12/13. The Court was told that the rationale for this is that a patient with a BMI below 13 is at high risk of refeeding according to MARSIPAN and more likely to require an acute hospital admission. This impression meant that hospital clinicians and the GP understood that Nichola would not be accepted by the Priory until her weight had increased. However the court heard that the Priory can take someone with a BMI of less than 13 if medically stable and the benefits of specialist care outweigh the risks of refeeding. Given the impression created by the Priory no attempt was made to obtain an emergency bed for Nichola who was medically stable for some time after the 11th June. ”

    Source location

    Nichola Jane Lomax · 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

    Develop a community eating disorder medical-monitoring pathway and accept medically stable patients based on clinical assessment rather than BMI alone.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GMMH) welcomes the recent investment by Bury Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in the new GMMH clinical model for adult eating disorders which is compliant with national commissioning guidance. This funding commitment will enable the provision of more comprehensive care and treatment to adults with eating disorders under GMMH. This will enable GMMH Community Eating Disorder Services (CEDS) to build on previous advice provided regarding MARSIPAN and dietetic advice for Fairfield General Hospital (FGH) and other acute hospitals across Greater Manchester and to work closely with partner organisations to develop robust pathways to ensure access to specialist advice.”

    Source location

    2021-0433 - Response regarding Nichola Lomax
    Page 24 · response
    Published 31 December 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop a shared operating procedure and training for communication between acute, community and specialist inpatient services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A meeting, attended by Consultant Psychiatrist ████████ and I was held with Northern Care Alliance and the Community Eating Disorders Service on Thursday 10 February 2022. During the meeting there was agreement that efforts would be made to enhance communication and understanding by virtue of developing a shared standard operating procedure and training. The standard operating procedure is under development and will in effect be a shared document which is owned by the relevant stakeholders. The standard operating procedure will also be shared with the provider collaborative and a request made for this to be an agenda item at the next liaison meeting.”

    Source location

    2021-0433 - Response regarding Nichola Lomax
    Page 28 · response
    Published 31 December 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Approve and implement an expanded adult community eating disorder service with psychiatric, physical-health, psychological and dietetic capacity.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A business case to expand the service in line with national standards and Greater Manchester and local priorities has been agreed between the CCG and GMMH, and was formally approved by the CCG board on 22 December 2021. I understand that the court was provided with a copy of this business case by GMMH during the course of the inquest; a further copy can be provided if needed. The new model as agreed includes the addition of psychiatry/ medical input to the service (a Consultant Psychiatrist and a Physical Health Practitioner) which will allow patients with a BMI of less than 14 to be accepted by the service and monitored medically by a clinician who has experience and knowledge of eating disorders. In addition it will include:”

    Source location

    2021-0433 - Response regarding Nichola Lomax
    Page 33 · response
    Published 31 December 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement the expanded adult eating disorder service to provide medical monitoring, specialist treatment, consultation and coordinated pathways.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “GMHSCP also acknowledges that the commissioned adult eating disorders service in Bury (like many areas of the country) was insufficient to meet local need. Since then, funding has now also been confirmed between Bury CCG and GMHSCP to implement the GMMH Adult Eating Disorders Business Case.”

    Source location

    2021-0433 - Response regarding Nichola Lomax
    Page 39 · response
    Published 31 December 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Priory Hospital Cheadle Royal is not commissioned to provide community interventions, apart from assessments that may lead to admission.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. Accessing Specialist Advice For clarification please note that Priory Hospital Cheadle Royal is commissioned to provide inpatient care and treatment to patients with an eating disorder. The service is not commissioned to provide interventions in the community other than to undertake patient assessments that may or may not result in patient admission.”

    Source location

    2021-0433 - Response regarding Nichola Lomax
    Page 28 · response
    Published 31 December 2021

    Open published response
  7. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

    AI-generated summary

    Ethel Ann Beaumont · 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

    Ethel Ann Beaumont died on 11 May 2020 after developing nitrofurantoin-induced liver injury and liver failure while being treated before planned surgery. The report found that a significantly raised ALT result should have been followed up promptly and raised concerns about unclear responsibility between hospital and primary care for monitoring antibiotics prescribed at the hospital’s request.

    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 clarity over responsibility for monitoring GP antibiotic prescribing requested by a hospital

    Wider context from the report

    “that there is a lack of clarity between hospital and primary care as to which of them should be responsible for monitoring where a GP is prescribing an antibiotic on the request of the hospital that a patient is attending regularly for review. I am concerned that these pathways should be clarified and that there remains a risk of future death at present. ”

    Source location

    Ethel Ann Beaumont · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Sheldon Marshall · 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

    Sheldon Marshall became seriously ill during a trek to Mount Everest Base Camp after sustaining a fractured left rib, later developing high-altitude pulmonary oedema, bronchopneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumothoraces. He died in intensive care on 17 December 2017 after cardiac arrests and a pleural injury associated with a right chest drain. The concerns identified were insufficient senior clinical input at Mayday Assistance Limited and unclear responsibility between Mayday Assistance Limited and air ambulance providers for patients’ overall medical management, presenting risks of future deaths.

    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 clarity about relative responsibility for patients’ overall medical management between Mayday Assistance Limited and air ambulance providers

    Wider context from the report

    “The medical management of patients once Mayday Assistance Limited has instructed an Air Ambulance provider During the course of the inquest the court heard evidence that on 24 November 2017 Mayday Assistance Limited instructed Tyrol Air Ambulance (TAA) to repatriate Mr Marshall from Nepal to the UK. The court heard that the repatriation to the UK did not ultimately go ahead as Mr Marshall was not considered fit enough to undergo the flight on the dates that TAA had an available aircraft. The court found that during the period from 24 November to 4 December 2017 there was a lack of clarity as between Mayday Assistance Limited and TAA with regards to who was responsible for Mr Marshall’s overall medical management, and as a result neither Mayday Assistance Limited nor TAA were monitoring Mr Marshall’s ongoing condition with a view to reviewing and advising on (i) whether the UK was the appropriate destination for Mr Marshall and identifying potential regional alternatives and (ii) the overall risk/benefits of him remaining in Nepal versus being transferred to another country in the region. Whilst the court was not persuaded that this omission caused or contributed to the particular facts of Mr Marshall’s death, the Coroner is concerned that this lack of clarity remains today, not only as between Mayday Assistance Limited and TAA but potentially as between Mayday Assistance Limited and other air ambulance providers, which presents a risk of future death. ”

    Source location

    Sheldon Marshall · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 6 · 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

    Establish Air Ambulance Support Agreements with providers to clarify responsibilities and promote close working relationships on all cases.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “An Air Ambulance Support Agreement is now in place with Mayday's Air Ambulance providers, as attached, to ensure that both parties are clear regarding their responsibilities and to ensure that there is a close working relationship on all cases. If a company declines to sign our agreement and cannot provide one with similar protocols they will be removed from Mayday's provider list.”

    Source location

    2021-0276-Response-from-Mayday-Group-Ltd_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    Open published response
  9. Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

    AI-generated summary

    Gillian McKinlay · 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

    Gillian McKinlay, aged 68, was admitted to Royal Blackburn Hospital on 23 April 2018 with a provisional diagnosis of small bowel obstruction. A nasogastric tube requested by clinicians was not sited before her death four hours later, and the Coroner considered this contributed to the death. Concerns included unclear responsibility for patients in the Accident and Emergency Department, failure to undertake or escalate a clinically indicated review, and inadequacies in the Trust's investigation and subsequent measures.

    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 clear allocation of overall clinical responsibility for patients remaining in the Accident and Emergency Department

    Wider context from the report

    “1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

    Source location

    Gillian McKinlay · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  10. Herefordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Jake Thomas PERRY · 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

    Jake Thomas PERRY died after water-soluble B-group vitamins were removed from his parenteral nutrition. The report identifies concerns about variation of the parenteral nutrition and communication between hospitals, including local consultant responsibility and specialist consultation.

    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 named local hospital Consultant for patients with conditions overseen by another hospital

    Wider context from the report

    “Concern relates to the variation of the Parenteral Nutrition and communication 1. Patients with a medical condition overseen by another hospital should have a named Consultant at their local hospital. 2. Where a patient is admitted and has a medical condition overseen by another hospital the specialist department (generally involved in the patient’s care) of the overseeing hospital (in addition to any other specialist hospital or department) should be consulted. ”

    Source location

    Jake Thomas PERRY · 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

    Develop patient information proformas covering involved professionals and admission management plans, with annual consultant review and updating.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. To improve the information held on patients with open access to the children’s ward.”

    Source location

    2020-0091-Response-from-Wye-Valley-NHS-Trust_Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Operate divisional standard operating procedures requiring named local consultants and consultation with relevant specialist departments at the overseeing hospital.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. Patients with a medical condition overseen by another hospital should have a named consultant at their local hospital.”

    Source location

    2020-0091-Response-from-Wye-Valley-NHS-Trust_Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026