Recurring concern

Failure to ensure clinical governance staff are competent for safety oversight

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 21 Oct 2019•Latest report 29 Sep 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures to provide, maintain or verify the knowledge and competence of staff responsible for clinical governance, patient-safety oversight or related governance decisions, including training gaps and failure to understand or apply guidance on safety investigations and governance controls.

Not included

  • Excludes competence deficiencies in frontline clinical care, clinical procedures or general staff training where the person is not responsible for clinical governance or patient-safety oversight.
  • Excludes deficiencies in the substantive design or operation of a named incident-management, audit or investigation system when staff competence is not the shared unsafe condition.
  • Excludes generic organisational governance, leadership or culture concerns where no failure to ensure the competence of clinical governance personnel is identified.
Reports
3

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
4

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2019–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
5

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.

Barts Health NHS Trust1
Department of Health and Social Care1
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust1
NHS England1
NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board1
University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust1

Concerns and responses across reports

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

  1. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Mohammad Ali Asghar · 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

    Mohammad Ali Asghar was admitted to hospital with worsening shortness of breath and fluid overload, and later suffered a cardiac arrest after catheter removal following haematuria and clots. The principal concerns were failures in Trust governance and incident-reporting processes, including the failure to identify and investigate the case through the Patient Safety Framework despite concerns about an iatrogenic injury and a court direction for review.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of senior governance staff understanding of guidance on patient safety investigation triggers

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Correspondence received from the Trust sent three months after the inquest that seeks to explain why a PSRF investigation was not undertaken in this case betrays the fact that senior governance staff at the Trust still do not understand NHS England guidance on what should trigger a patient safety investigation. ”

    Source location

    Mohammad Ali Asghar · 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

    Commission an independent review of governance and PSIRM decision-making for PSIRF learning responses, including PSII criteria and thresholds.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To support this, Barts Health is in the process of commissioning an Independent Review of our governance processes with comprehensive terms of reference which will include review of our decision-making at Patient Safety Incident Review Meeting (PSIRM) relating to the learning responses under PSIRF. This review will examine the criteria and thresholds used to determine when a PSII or alternative learning response is required, ensuring these are clearly defined, consistently applied, and responsive to emerging information or stakeholder concerns.”

    Source location

    Response from Barts Health NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 October 2025

    Open published response
  2. Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

    AI-generated summary

    Ida Jean Lock · 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

    Ida Jean Lock died on 16 November 2019 after suffering a lack of oxygen during delivery on 9 November 2019, resulting in severe hypoxic-ischaemic brain damage. The report describes missed opportunities for enhanced care and obstetric input, delays in responding to fetal distress, and initially ineffective neonatal resuscitation. The principal concerns include the Trust’s alleged lack of candour and transparency, deficient clinical and maternity governance, inadequate investigations, gaps in mandatory and remedial training, and inappropriate grading of the harm suffered.

    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

    Insufficiently skilled and trained clinical governance personnel

    Wider context from the report

    “6. I consider the clinical governance arrangements at the Trust require urgent review to ensure the appropriate personnel are in place, with the necessary training and skills to deliver robust clinical governance to ensure patient safety in maternity care. ”

    Source location

    Ida Jean Lock · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · 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

    Untrained clinical governance staff

    Wider context from the report

    “7. As a result of the Trust's deficient processes, the Trust did not undertake any examination of its own clinical governance processes, which were a principle area of concern and which was identified to the Trust five months before the inquest commenced. The Trust's clinical governance arrangements were extracted piecemeal during the course of the inquest. The deficiencies included lack of version control and audit of documents, untrained staff, chaotic clinical governance arrangements, defensive attitudes and inappropriate self-congratulation. The clinicians' reports to the inquest only answered the questions they were asked rather than trying to assist with a holistic view of the evidence, did not provide relevant information until it was extracted from the witness in testimony, that resulted in rolling disclosure of documents and additional witness evidence. ”

    Source location

    Ida Jean Lock · 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

    Implement a Trust-wide clinical governance reform covering document control, mandatory governance training, oversight restructuring, outcome-focused learning and family-centred care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have undertaken a comprehensive reform of our Trust-wide clinical governance framework. This includes:”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 6 · response
    Published 26 March 2025

    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 training and development where compliance concerns identify gaps in skills, knowledge or behaviours.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “What we are going to do next:”

    Source location

    Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 9 · response
    Published 26 March 2025

    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

    Monitor the impact of clinical-governance recruitment and attend Trust committees to scrutinise and challenge governance practices.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The ICB is deeply saddened that the family of Ida were unnecessarily exposed to an extended court hearing as a result of poor clinical governance within the Trust; we were very concerned to read the findings from the inquest and do not support poor governance practices. We are aware that there has been staffing vacancies/absences within the clinical governance team which we would partly attribute to the deficiencies identified. The ICB are assured that key governance posts have been recruited to and staff commenced in post (albeit interim in some cases). The ICB will continue to monitor the impact of this recruitment to assure itself that clinical governance practices are improved, embedded and sustained. Additionally, the ICB will attend internal Trust key committee meetings and ensure scrutiny is afforded and challenge given where these practices are seen.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
    Page 5 · response
    Published 26 March 2025

    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

    University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB will address specific changes arising from the report.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My response therefore focuses on concern D and E. I note that you have also addressed this report to University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (UHMBT) and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board (LSC ICB). These organisations will address specifics as to the changes being implemented as a result of the Report. NHS England’s response to you is also made on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), and I understand that they will not therefore be issuing a separate response to the Coroner. With DHSC input, I have also addressed in this response some of your concerns regarding A and B.”

    Source location

    Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 2025

    Open published response
  3. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Lauren Victoria Finch · 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

    Lauren Victoria Finch, aged 23, died on 24 September 2018 after suspending herself from a bedroom door while detained as a patient at Atherleigh Park Hospital; she suffered a significant brain injury and later died in hospital. The principal concerns included inadequate suicide-risk assessment and review, inappropriate observation levels and practices, failures in the anti-barricade system, and delayed clinical record entries.

    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 investigation staff to correctly understand and apply the observation policy

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The Trust carried out an investigation following the death of Lauren. It was of concern that the lead investigator (who gave evidence at the inquest) did not understand the Observation Policy and suggested that observations should be carried out at irregular intervals (which was correct) but then gave an example of 10 minute observations being carried out at: 10 am, 10.08 am, 10.20 am (which is clearly not in accordance with the Policy). The interval should never exceed the 10 minute period (and there is 12 minutes between 10.08 am and 10.20 am). ”

    Source location

    Lauren Victoria Finch · 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 standard serious-incident-investigation terms of reference requiring assessment against evidence-based practice, NICE guidance, policies and procedures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Lead investigators are supported during the course of investigations by assigned clinical experts. The Trust has developed a standard suite of terms of reference which are to be considered as part of a serious incident investigation; this includes to assess if care delivered was concordant with evidence based practice, NICE guidance, policies and procedures.”

    Source location

    2019-0506-Response-from-North-West-Boroughs-Healthcare-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026