Recurring concern

Unreliable clinical decisions about when CT scanning is needed

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 6 Aug 2018•Latest report 22 Dec 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in clinical assessment and decision-making about whether CT scanning is indicated, including failure to reconsider CT after changing symptoms or findings, failure to obtain CT when required before discharge or consequential treatment, and failure of the CT-request decision process to provide an appropriate decision for an urgent diagnostic need.

Not included

  • Excludes CT scanner outages, service capacity, scheduling and access failures where the clinical-indication decision itself is not deficient.
  • Excludes technical performance, image acquisition, reporting and interpretation failures after the decision to perform CT has been made.
  • Excludes deficiencies in general diagnostic imaging or non-CT investigations unless the assertion specifically concerns deciding whether CT scanning is needed.
  • Excludes generic clinical-record, communication or staffing deficiencies unless they directly cause an unreliable decision about CT indication.
Reports
7

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
8

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2018–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
12

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 Care2
General Medical Council1
Royal College of Emergency Medicine1
Royal College of Surgeons of England1
Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust1
Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust1
South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust1
Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust1
The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland1
The Society and College of Radiographers1
University Hospitals Birmingham 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. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Winifred Mary Wardle · 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

    Winifred Mary Wardle was admitted to hospital with vomiting and an undiagnosed intestinal problem; an incarcerated hernia was identified by CT scan after delays in obtaining the scan. She underwent surgery, aspirated stomach contents immediately beforehand, developed pneumonia, and died after active treatment was withdrawn. The substantive concerns related to the lack of a clear multidisciplinary protocol for CT scan requests, radiology decision-making and escalation processes, and incomplete records of those decisions.

    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 ensure ward-level doctors can obtain urgent CT scan decisions when needed for diagnosis

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There appears to be an absence within the Tameside General Hospital of a clear protocol for a multi-disciplinary approach to CT scan requests; (2) The on-call radiologist appears to be the ultimate decision-maker in relation to CT scan requests, even where ward-level doctors require urgent clarity from CT scans to achieve a diagnosis; (3) The lines of escalation where a request for a CT scan is not accepted by the radiology department are not clearly known or understood at ward-level, even by consultants; and (4) The records of the decision-making process concerning CT scan requests are not comprehensive so as to provide a clear account. ”

    Source location

    Winifred Mary Wardle · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Lorraine Sandra Parker · 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

    Lorraine Parker underwent surgery for sigmoid colon cancer in January 2024 and was discharged with a rising CRP and no post-operative scan. After returning to hospital, an anastomotic leak was initially missed, and she later died at Royal Berkshire Hospital on 30 March 2024 following a sudden deterioration. The principal concerns were the lack of guidance requiring consideration of CT scanning when CRP is high and rising or not decreasing, and reliance on clinical judgement without sufficiently accounting for objective blood-test results.

    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 guidance requiring consideration of CT scanning when CRP is high and not decreasing or rising after major abdominal surgery

    Wider context from the report

    “2. There is currently no guidance which requires surgeons to consider scanning for patients who have undergone major abdominal surgery and whose CRP is high and not decreasing, as was the case here at the time Lorraine was discharged from hospital on 31st January 2024. 3. There may be some difficulty in creating a hard line requirement for CT scanning based on a particular CRP result, but I am concerned that there is no guidance in place for requiring a consultant to consider this – perhaps when the CRP is above a certain figure and either not decreasing or continuing to rise. Any such guidance could still allow for clinical judgement – and documenting of the reasons for that decision. 4. It is my experience that clinical judgement alone, particularly where a patient looks well “from the end of the bed” is not always sufficient in this scenario. I have seen a number of avoidable death cases in this context. The purpose of blood test results is to flag up objective areas of concern. There is much reference to chasing up CRP results in Lorraine’s records, but these do not appear to have been taken into account at the time that she was discharged from the hospital without a post-operative scan. ”

    Source location

    Lorraine Sandra Parker · 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

    Provide existing guidance on postoperative CRP monitoring and CT investigation triggers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to the matters of concern raised, I attach Issues in Professional Practice Guidance on the Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Colorectal Anastomotic Leak, produced in collaboration with ACPGBI. Although published in 2016, the guidance around post-operative CRP monitoring and triggering subsequent radiological investigation remains as pertinent to clinical practice now as it was then. Please see in particular pages 16-17, where cut off values for CRP triggering a subsequent CT scan are also considered. In addition, there have been several subsequent publications (available on Pubmed) confirming this practice.”

    Source location

    Response from The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 April 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

    Contact ACPGBI to support its assessment of guidance needs and dissemination of any resulting guidance or communications.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Deterioration of the surgical patient following bowel surgery, and appropriate perioperative care, is covered in the postgraduate training surgical curriculum in the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme (often referred to as ‘ISCP’). We note that the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) has been informed of the report and they are best placed to consider the need for guidance. We will contact them to support their assessment and any dissemination of guidance or other communications.”

    Source location

    Response from Royal College of Surgeons
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 April 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

    Share the case details with NICE’s prioritisation team for consideration of whether further action is needed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The NICE guideline does not provide detailed protocols for postoperative tests or scans, and clinicians would be expected to use their judgement and follow local protocols or other relevant professional guidance. However, whilst the Department has no immediate plans to instruct NICE to produce standalone guidance on post-surgery imaging based on CRP thresholds, details of this case have been shared with colleagues in NICE’s prioritisation team to consider if further action should be taken.”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 24 April 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

    Existing guidance on CRP monitoring and CT investigation makes further ACPGBI guidance unnecessary at this time.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to the matters of concern raised, I attach Issues in Professional Practice Guidance on the Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Colorectal Anastomotic Leak, produced in collaboration with ACPGBI. Although published in 2016, the guidance around post-operative CRP monitoring and triggering subsequent radiological investigation remains as pertinent to clinical practice now as it was then. Please see in particular pages 16-17, where cut off values for CRP triggering a subsequent CT scan are also considered. In addition, there have been several subsequent publications (available on Pubmed) confirming this practice.”

    Source location

    Response from The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 April 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

    ACPGBI is best placed to consider whether guidance is needed on recognising deterioration after bowel surgery.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Deterioration of the surgical patient following bowel surgery, and appropriate perioperative care, is covered in the postgraduate training surgical curriculum in the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme (often referred to as ‘ISCP’). We note that the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) has been informed of the report and they are best placed to consider the need for guidance. We will contact them to support their assessment and any dissemination of guidance or other communications.”

    Source location

    Response from Royal College of Surgeons
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 April 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

    Clinical guidance is primarily the responsibility of NICE and relevant Royal Colleges, while Trusts should implement appropriate local processes or guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “While NHS England notes your concerns, clinical guidelines are primarily the responsibility of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the appropriate Royal Colleges. NHS Trusts are expected to have due regard to any clinical guidelines and to implement the appropriate local processes and/or guidance. I note that you have also addressed your Report to the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain (ACPGBI) and the Royal College of Surgeons, who are the more appropriate organisations to respond to your concerns.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 April 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

    Further guidance on CT scanning after abdominal surgery with raised CRP is not required because existing guidance and evidence address anastomotic leaks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS England has however discussed your Report with the ACPGBI, and it is agreed that there is not a requirement for further guidance to be written. CRP levels are”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 April 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

    Existing NICE guidance, clinical judgement, local protocols and relevant professional guidance are relied upon instead of standalone CRP-based postoperative imaging guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regard to concerns about guidance for clinicians, the NICE guideline on colorectal cancer (NG151) aims to improve quality of life and survival for adults with colorectal cancer by providing evidence-based recommendations on the management of both local disease and metastatic (secondary) cancer. It covers which interventions should be used for different types and stages of the disease, helping to guide decisions on surgery, chemotherapy, and other treatments.”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 24 April 2025

    Open published response
  3. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Mnayea ZMF Al Basman · 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

    Mnayea ZMF Al Basman, who had significant co-morbidities, underwent a right hemicolectomy for caecal adenocarcinoma and died in hospital on 25 March 2024 after developing sepsis and peritonitis caused by an anastomotic leak. Concerns included failure to escalate aspects of his deterioration to the consultant surgeon, insufficient professional curiosity, inadequate overnight observation planning, and a lack of detail in some records. The report also noted that the events preceding his death had not been subject to an internal investigation, providing little reassurance that these matters had been addressed.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to consider further CT scanning in light of drain issues

    Wider context from the report

    “1) The consultant colorectal surgeon was not in the hospital over the weekend of 23/24 March 2024; however, he was able to be contacted if the need arose. The consultant surgeon noted the following matters in relation to the care provided to Mr Al Basman over that weekend: • a further CT scan could have been indicated, particularly given issues with Mr Al Basman’s drain, albeit there was nothing to indicate that any scan was needed on an urgent basis; • some entries in the clinical notes may have been ‘falsely reassuring’; • the physiotherapist who saw Mr Al Basman on the morning of 24 March 2024, noted that he appeared to be ‘declining’ but there was no evidence that this was escalated this to someone within the healthcare team; • there was a degree of insufficient professional curiosity on the part of some clinicians who saw Mr Al Basman; and • there should have been a plan in place to closely observe Mr Al Basman overnight on 24/25 March 2024. 2) Based on the above, the consultant surgeon formed the view that Mr Al Basman’s clinical presentation should have led to the consultant being informed and consulted, but it did not. 3) A number of the notes/records in relation to the care provided to Mr Al Basman, particularly over the weekend of 23/24 March 2024, lacked detail. Given that the events preceding Mr Al Basman’s death have not been the subject of an internal investigation, I received little, if any, reassurance that these matters have been addressed. ”

    Source location

    Mnayea ZMF Al Basman · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  4. Black Country

    AI-generated summary

    Karmchand Gulzar · 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

    Karmchand Gulzar was taken to Sandwell Hospital on 23 September 2022 with abdominal distension and pain and was diagnosed with acute intestinal obstruction. A CT scan and immediate surgical review were delayed; his condition deteriorated, urgent surgery took place during the evening and early morning, and he died during the operation in the early hours of 24 September 2022. Concerns included failure to follow the surgical registrar referral pathway, failure to undertake an urgent CT scan, and insufficient recognition of deterioration and concerns raised by carers and family about his condition.

    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 undertake an urgent CT scan for acute abdominal presentations

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) No CT scan was undertaken as required by the acute abdominal pathway and guidance as part of the initial assessment. I was concerned by evidence that a CT scan would not be undertaken urgently as part of an acute abdominal presentation and that the necessity for a scan may not be known by junior (or some consultant) doctors. ”

    Source location

    Karmchand Gulzar · 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

    Lack of clinician awareness of the necessity for CT scanning in acute abdominal presentations

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) No CT scan was undertaken as required by the acute abdominal pathway and guidance as part of the initial assessment. I was concerned by evidence that a CT scan would not be undertaken urgently as part of an acute abdominal presentation and that the necessity for a scan may not be known by junior (or some consultant) doctors. ”

    Source location

    Karmchand Gulzar · 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

    Update and reissue the acute abdomen guideline with a pathway flowchart, early CT emphasis, and mandatory consultant discussion before surgical referral.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Management of Acute Abdomen guideline that was in use at the time of this incident has been updated and re-issued in June 2023. This guideline was created in consultation with the Doctors working within the Emergency Department and the Patient Safety team, to ensure the appropriate learning is incorporated into the process. The guideline aligns with the BMJ Best Practice recommendations.”

    Source location

    Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 January 2024

    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

    Embed the updated acute abdomen guidance through staff dissemination, intranet publication, team discussions, induction and teaching, handover reminders, and anonymised case-learning discussions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In order to embed the new guideline, it has been sent to all applicable staff, published on our intranet site and discussed within team meetings and appropriate forums. The guidance is highlighted at induction sessions for new doctors and in appropriate teaching sessions. Staff have also been reminded to include outstanding referrals at the handover discussion. Mr Gulzar’s case has also been anonymised and discussed with the clinical teams within the Emergency and”

    Source location

    Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 January 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Audit the acute abdomen pathway to assess the effectiveness of the updated guidance and related safety activities.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Surgical departments to ensure our teams are aware of the learning from this case. To assess the efficacy of the activities described above, an audit of the Acute Abdomen pathway is planned in March 2024.”

    Source location

    Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 January 2024

    Open published response
  5. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Hilary THOMAS · 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

    Hilary THOMAS attended hospital with abdominal pain on 28 and 29 October 2022, then reattended on 30 October in a shocked and profoundly unwell state. She underwent emergency surgery for ischaemic bowel caused by adhesions but died on 31 October 2022. The principal concerns were delayed review of blood test results, failure to escalate her case for consultant review, and delay in arranging a CT scan.

    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 follow guidance on proceeding with CT scans without waiting for blood test results

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The doctor treating Mrs Thomas on her second attendance decided to wait for blood test result before ordering a CT scan under the misunderstanding that these were required to assess the possibility of renal toxicity from dye used during the scan. The inquest heard evidence that a CT scan should have been undertaken and there was no need to wait for blood test results. This raised a concern that staff at the Trust are unaware of this guidance. ”

    Source location

    Hilary THOMAS · 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 laminated posters explaining the emergency contrast CT guidance in acute surgical areas at all acute sites by 31 October 2023.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Modern contrast agents are much safer than older agents and studies have reported that blood tests are not required for emergency CT scans. In June 2023, the Royal Colleges of Radiologists & Royal College Emergency Medicine published joint guidance, strengthening previous guidance, that patients requiring emergency iodinated intravenous contrast CT imaging should proceed to scanning without delay. The Trust will ensure that relevant staff are aware of this guidance and will ensure that it is disseminated to all staff managing acute surgical emergencies.”

    Source location

    Response University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 7 July 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

    Publish and disseminate a Trust policy reflecting the June 2023 emergency contrast CT guidance to all clinical staff by 31 October 2023.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Modern contrast agents are much safer than older agents and studies have reported that blood tests are not required for emergency CT scans. In June 2023, the Royal Colleges of Radiologists & Royal College Emergency Medicine published joint guidance, strengthening previous guidance, that patients requiring emergency iodinated intravenous contrast CT imaging should proceed to scanning without delay. The Trust will ensure that relevant staff are aware of this guidance and will ensure that it is disseminated to all staff managing acute surgical emergencies.”

    Source location

    Response University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 7 July 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 online requesting system to reflect the emergency contrast CT guidance by 31 October 2023.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. Locally: Laminated posters of the joint statement will be displayed in acute surgical areas at all acute sites. A new trust policy that directly reflects the June 2023 guidelines will be published and disseminated to all clinical staff. The Trust will update online requesting system to reflect the new guidance. This will be discussed at all relevant departmental governance meetings. These actions will be completed by 31st October 2023.”

    Source location

    Response University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 7 July 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

    Discuss the emergency contrast CT guidance at relevant departmental governance meetings by 31 October 2023.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. Locally: Laminated posters of the joint statement will be displayed in acute surgical areas at all acute sites. A new trust policy that directly reflects the June 2023 guidelines will be published and disseminated to all clinical staff. The Trust will update online requesting system to reflect the new guidance. This will be discussed at all relevant departmental governance meetings. These actions will be completed by 31st October 2023.”

    Source location

    Response University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 7 July 2023

    Open published response
  6. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew Spencer Wing · 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

    Andrew Spencer Wing had a history of untreated hypertension and was discharged from hospital after investigations for acute left-sided pain, without a CT aorta being undertaken. He subsequently died from the effects of an aortic dissection. The principal concerns were that the chest X-ray and recognised possibility of aortic dissection should have led to a CT aorta, and that radiographers reviewing X-rays were given sparse clinical information.

    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 undertake CT aorta imaging when aortic dissection is in the differential diagnosis

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The chest Xray taken on the 13th January 2019 showed an image which was at least at the upper end of normal and in the context of a differential diagnosis of aortic dissection should have led to a CT Aorta being undertaken. Plain X rays are not diagnostic of aortic dissections. The consultant radiographer who reviewed the X ray remotely on the 14th January 2019 reported it as normal but had not been made aware of the differential diagnosis of aortic dissection. If he had been made aware of this he would have advised that a CT Aorta be undertaken. ”

    Source location

    Andrew Spencer Wing · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Sunderland

    AI-generated summary

    Ms Susan Joan Elliott (Sue) · 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

    Ms Susan Joan Elliott died at Sunderland Royal Hospital on 14 September 2017 after a fall, an initially unconfirmed suspected hip fracture, subsequent readmission and surgery. Concerns included that the 4 August x-ray was reportedly ignored, no CT scan was undertaken before discharge, and surgery may have been possible earlier.

    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 obtain definitive diagnostic imaging before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “No CT scan was undertaken prior to discharge on 9th August 2017, so there was no definitive diagnosis and decisions were based on clinical impression. ”

    Source location

    Ms Susan Joan Elliott (Sue) · 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

    Include the Emergency Department Injured Elderly NWB Guideline in junior doctor induction and stress discussion of referrals at trauma x-ray meetings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “At the inquest, the same witness also made reference to new protocols about the treatment of patients presenting with similar conditions such as Ms Elliott, but did not produce any documents. I would like to assure you that we do have an “Emergency Department Injured Elderly Non-Wight Bearing (NWGB) Guideline” which was developed in 2015. This guideline provides clear recommendations for cross sectional (CT) imaging and reporting, where pain or dysfunction suggests an occult fracture. I have provided a copy of this guideline.”

    Source location

    2018-0275-Response-by-City-Hospital-Sunderland-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 October 2018

    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 and relaunch the injured elderly non-weight-bearing pathway across the Trust to raise clinicians’ awareness.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The guideline is now included in the T&O junior doctor induction programme and the importance of all referrals being discussed at the trauma x-ray meeting is also stressed within this training. Our internal investigation has acknowledged that we need to review and relaunch this pathway across the Trust in order to raise clinicians’ awareness and this has been addressed within the action plan.”

    Source location

    2018-0275-Response-by-City-Hospital-Sunderland-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 October 2018

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026