Recurring concern

Failure to provide meaningful activity and stimulation to vulnerable patients

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 29 Apr 2016•Latest report 20 Apr 2017

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of care arrangements specifically intended to provide, plan, offer, record or review meaningful activity, stimulation or engagement for vulnerable patients, including dementia patients, where the activity is needed during periods of vulnerability or inpatient care.

Not included

  • Excludes generic communication or staff-contact deficiencies where meaningful activity, stimulation or engagement is not the identified unsafe condition.
  • Excludes failures of clinical treatment, personal care, nutrition, mobility or observation unless they directly concern the provision of meaningful activity or stimulation.
  • Excludes routine leisure preferences or dissatisfaction without an identified failure to provide needed meaningful activity or stimulation.
  • Excludes activities for the general public, students or other groups where the assertion is not about vulnerable patients receiving care.
Reports
2

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
2

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2016–2017

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
0

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.

University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust2

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. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Patricia Margherita WEBB · 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

    Patricia Margherita WEBB was an 86-year-old woman who was admitted to hospital after which she experienced six falls, fracturing her hip in the sixth fall. The report raised concerns about fall prevention, observation and meaningful activity, footwear and mobility, staffing and ward layout, handover arrangements, resources, and delays in discharge.

    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 meaningful activity during periods of patient vulnerability

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) There was a plan in mid-September put in place by the Dementia Nurse for Mrs Webb to have increased levels of observation, for her to be engaged in meaningful activity and for allowing her to be more mobile using non slip footwear and a mobility aid. With regard to the observations I really could not see any evidence that this was giving her enhanced protection. When analysing the falls and their timing it was clear that they always happened early in the morning and often round about the end of the night shift and the start of the day shift when clearly this particular lady was more vulnerable because I suppose she was more active, possibly also if she had been in bed for most of the night she might have been less safely mobile. It’s a shame that this pattern was not observed and arrangements put in place to keep a particular eye on her around this period of time. With regard to meaningful activity it never appeared in the notes following the mid-September plan and since it wasn’t in the notes I found no evidence that it happened. I would suggest that on each change of shift the meaningful activity which the patient has engaged in is recorded and noted so that if there is something that he or she finds particularly absorbing this activity can be offered at times of particular vulnerability. With regard to mobilising, I fully appreciate that the wandering patient who is mobile is at particular risk and I also appreciate the difficulty that might be encountered when trying to persuade such a patient to use a mobility aid. Non slip footwear however, is surely much easier to provide. I know that the hospital footwear comprises ‘short socklets’ in different sizes (thus the right size is always difficult to obtain) with non-slip soles. I was told that these can shift round on the foot so that the sole perhaps rides round to the top of the foot meaning the socklet then becomes dangerous. Wouldn’t it be an idea to see whether proper slippers can be sourced. Perhaps there is a local firm who would like to provide these – it would be a challenge to make them reusable or alternatively if they are cheap enough to be disposed of after use by one patient. Is it worthwhile liaising with South East Coast Ambulance asking them to encourage patients being bought to hospital to bring their own slippers in exactly the same way as they bring their own medications. Whilst I appreciate many of the slippers bought in by patients will be unsuitable by the same token many will be perfectly acceptable. ”

    Source location

    Patricia Margherita WEBB · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  2. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Jack MOLYNEUX · 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

    Jack MOLYNEUX was awaiting discharge to a nursing home after admission to a ward for elderly male patients, where he had dementia but no acute physical illness. The report describes concerns about inadequate care, including failures relating to mobility, hydration, nutrition, mouth care, personal hygiene, psychological wellbeing, stimulation and medication, and states that these omissions and failings contributed to his death. His death was unexpected after transfer to the nursing home, where his condition and engagement reportedly improved.

    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 meaningful stimulation

    Wider context from the report

    “Mr Jack MOLYNEUX was awaiting discharge to an appropriate Nursing Home. He was on a 19 bedded ward for elderly male patients and during that time he was not suffering from any acute physical illness, but he did however have moderately advanced mixed alzheimer’s and vascular dementia and he needed to be mobilised, he needed to be appropriately hydrated and have his nutrition maintained. He needed mouth care, he had dentures but the top plate was lost. He needed personal hygiene, he needed to have his psychological wellbeing maintained and he needed stimulation and he also needed to have his medications given to him appropriately. It was clear that he did not have mental capacity, it was clear that he could not consider the consequences of his decisions not to accept care or hydration and nutrition or his medications and yet no consideration was given of placing him on a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding Order. He needed, but he didn’t receive full care in respect of all the matters mentioned above. Mobility He was never helped to mobilise or to maintain the good mobility which he had when he came into hospital. He was never offered to have his out door clothes and perhaps to be assisted to go down to the hospital shop to buy a newspaper which was something he used to do every day before he came into hospital. He lost 20% of his bodyweight in the one calendar month when he was in hospital and absolutely no note was taken of this and he wasn’t referred to the dieticians until he had been in hospital for almost that full calendar month. His mouth was in such an appalling state when he moved to his nursing home that the nursing home immediately raised a safeguarding alert on the grounds of neglect. His dentures were lost and his mouth was in such a poor state that the staff, on Vallance Ward, were unaware that he even had a lower plate in his mouth. His personal hygiene was such that whilst it was noted he was washed there was no evidence whatsoever that he was ever offered a bath or shower in the four weeks of his admission. There was no evidence whatsoever that any form of stimulation was provided. There was a television by his bed but no evidence that anybody ever discussed with him whether he might like to watch anything on it. With regard to his psychological wellbeing this appeared from the evidence before me to have been completely disregarded. Finally with regard to his medications he refused all his medications on an inconsistent basis but he did take his Memantine for pretty well every day of his hospital admission apart from on a couple of occasions just before he was discharged. At the Inquest I found that whilst he had been neglected during his admission, the circumstances did not reach the required standards for a conclusion of neglect contributing his death. I believe this to be one of the most disturbing cases of sub optimal care that I have come across recently and I am not at all satisfied that this Inquest will result in any effective action being taken which is why I am concerned to follow up this matter and to ensure that all those who should know about this situation are informed. Certainly I found that the above omissions and failings contributed to Mr Molyneux’s death. When he arrived at the nursing home he came on the evening of the 25th January and on the 26th the staff at Partridge House achieved an almost miraculous transformation. He was dressed, although he needed the help of two members of staff, he was on his feet and assisted to mobilise to the toilet, he was sitting out in a bucket chair with other residents and was entertained with a film, his mouth was cleaned, the GP provided mouth wash and mouth gel which was applied. His halitosis which had been so strong that it could be smelt outside his room at Partridge House was resolved, he was smiling and reasonably responsive and was eating and drinking again and also engaged with his son, waving goodbye to him when he had visited on the 26th or 27th. His death was unexpected. Partridge House staff had hoped that whilst he would not have been able to go home he could at least have a reasonable standard of life and be enabled to be content. Finally, it is of note that an urgent DOLS was put in place on the morning of the 27th January 2016. ”

    Source location

    Jack MOLYNEUX · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026