Recurring concern

Unreliable pre-operative assessment arrangements delaying or compromising surgery

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 27 Oct 2014•Latest report 10 May 2022

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in pre-operative assessment arrangements that cause avoidable delay, impose unnecessary attendance or approval requirements, omit required preparation, or fail to ensure that material assessment information reaches the clinicians responsible for the procedure.

Not included

  • Excludes deficiencies in assessing surgical suitability or operative risk where the pre-operative assessment arrangements themselves are not unreliable; those belong to the existing surgical-risk assessment concern.
  • Excludes generic staffing shortages, consultant availability or communication failures unless they directly concern the pre-operative assessment process.
  • Excludes delays or information failures occurring after the pre-operative assessment has been completed and transferred to the operating team.
  • Excludes postoperative assessment, treatment, monitoring and discharge processes.
Reports
7

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
7

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2022

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
8

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.

East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust1
King's College Hospital1
Medway NHS Foundation Trust1
Stockport NHS Foundation Trust1
St Peter's Hospital1
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust1
University Hospitals Sussex 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. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Freda Mary Lennox · 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

    Freda Mary Lennox, an 86-year-old woman with significant idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other medical comorbidities, was admitted for an elective total hip replacement and died on 4 November 2020 after experiencing a cardio-respiratory arrest at the end of the procedure. Concerns included incomplete pre-operative assessment, a lack of recent orthopaedic and anaesthetic review before admission, and inadequate resources for a dedicated high-risk anaesthetic assessment service.

    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

    Unavailability of designated permanent room space for a high-risk anaesthetic pre-operative assessment clinic

    Wider context from the report

    “5. There was no designated (permanent) room space to set up such a clinic and no secretarial input to type reports for high-risk patients which led to a significant delay in providing a timely service. ”

    Source location

    Freda Mary Lennox · 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

    Establish four protected consultant-led high-risk anaesthetic pre-assessment clinics weekly, including specialist orthopaedic expertise, dedicated rooms and appropriate medical equipment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust has appointed an anaesthetic lead for high-risk anaesthetic patient pathways, and in response to your concerns we have finalised our plans to expand the services for high-risk patients.”

    Source location

    Response from St Peter's Hospital
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 May 2022

    Open published response
  2. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Kenneth George Alfred WHITTINGTON · 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

    Kenneth George Alfred Whittington died following an operation, but the supplied text does not provide further circumstances of his death beyond referring to the Record of Inquest. The principal concerns included inadequate instructions and handover about management of his urinary catheter after bladder repair, failure to check a disconnected epidural despite increasing pain, incomplete blood transfusion and discharge documentation, and a delay to the initial operation because no Junior Doctor was present.

    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

    Unnecessary Junior Doctor attendance requirement delaying operations

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr. Whittington’s initial operation was abandoned because on his pre operation assessment on the 23rd March 2018 there was no Junior Doctor present. It became apparent that the presence of a Junior Doctor was not imperative by any means. I gather that since this situation occurred and caused a delay in Mr. Whittington’s operation the presence of a Junior Doctor in these circumstances is really no longer required. Although the delay neither caused nor contributed to Mr. Whittington’s death it must nonetheless have caused him considerable anxiety and inconvenience. ”

    Source location

    Kenneth George Alfred WHITTINGTON · 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 a nurse-led pre-operative assessment model and continue work to improve identification and escalation of abnormal blood results.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There was no junior doctor present at the pre operative assessment appointment to see Mr Whittington. This resulted in his atypical antibodies not being identified and therefore the surgery did not take place on the original date planned. For this I apologise. A General Medical Council (GMC) and Health Education England Kent Surrey and Sussex (HEEKSS) Deanery review of the Digestive Diseases Directorate in the Trust was undertaken. This review was critical of our use of junior doctors in pre-operative assessment processes and they recommended that these tasks should be nurse delivered as is the case in most NHS Trusts now. A Working Group was convened to change the pre operative assessment process and a new model is being developed. Nursing Staff are responsible for flagging pre operative abnormal blood test results. Mr Threfall is in contact with the Pre Operative”

    Source location

    2019-0049-Response-by-Brighton-and-Sussex-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 May 2019

    Open published response
  3. Coventry

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Robert Dymond · 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

    Mr Robert Dymond underwent elective left knee replacement surgery on 9 March 2017 and suffered a massive thromboembolic event the following morning, dying on 11 March 2017. Concerns included the management and follow-up of suspected deep vein thrombosis, the apparent failure to communicate the November 2016 DVT investigations and treatment to the surgical and anaesthetic teams, and their omission from the second pre-operative assessment.

    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 include relevant DVT investigations and treatment in the second pre-operative assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The DVT investigations/treatment in November 2016 did not appear to feature in the second pre-operative assessment carried out on 12 January 2017. ”

    Source location

    Mr Robert Dymond · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The available investigations did not identify DVT, so it would not have affected pre-operative assessment or the operating team’s decisions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The haematologists do consider it unlikely that the patient did have a proximal DVT as he was untreated and would not appear to have had any further problems up until his surgery 4 months later. As no DVT was identified by the investigations it would not have been relevant to the pre-operative assessment and would not have been relevant to the operating team.”

    Source location

    2017-0333-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Coventry-and-Warwickshire-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 December 2017

    Open published response
  4. Mid Kent and Medway

    AI-generated summary

    Alwyn Ann Head · 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

    Alwyn Ann Head was admitted to hospital after falls caused a fractured femur at the site of a prosthesis. She underwent surgery, developed an MRSA wound infection, deteriorated after further surgery, and died on 20 August 2015. Concerns included failure to establish her MRSA history, lack of prophylactic Teicoplanin, absence of a post-operative wound care plan, inadequate evidence of wound inspection, and meaningless nursing documentation about the wound.

    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 MRSA history before surgery

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That Mrs Head had a history of MRSA was not established prior to surgery despite opportunities in 3 different hospital departments to obtain this information from Mrs. Head or her family ”

    Source location

    Alwyn Ann Head · 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

    Introduce new admission and transfer documentation to record patient infection status.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We acknowledge that although Mrs Head had a history of MRSA this was not established prior to the surgical procedure. We have therefore introduced a series of measures to reduce the risk of this situation re-occurring, which are:”

    Source location

    A-head-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 March 2016

    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

    Disseminate the new infection-status documentation through twice-monthly infection-control update sessions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Staff are made aware of the new documentation on the twice monthly level 3 infection control update sessions.”

    Source location

    A-head-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 March 2016

    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

    Check completion of infection-status documentation during daily patient reviews and provide nursing feedback.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• As part of their daily routine patient reviews the infection control team are checking the new documentation has been completed and provide the nursing staff with feedback at the time.”

    Source location

    A-head-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 March 2016

    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

    Amend the surgical safety checklist to verify MRSA status and history with patients and staff before induction and at theatre sign-in.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The surgical safety checklist is being amended to ensure MRSA status and MRSA History is verified by two staff and with the patient pre operatively in the Anaesthetic Room before induction and again with the whole theatre team at ‘sign in’.”

    Source location

    A-head-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 March 2016

    Open published response
  5. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Rosina Drury · 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

    Rosina Drury, who had several co-morbidities but was described as fit and independent, fell and fractured her hip before undergoing a right hemiarthroplasty. She died from a fat embolism associated with bone cement implantation, described as an unintended consequence of necessary medical treatment. The report raised concern that the absence of pre-operative orthogeriatric review could result in high-risk patients receiving cemented rather than uncemented hemiarthroplasty.

    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 pre-operative orthogeriatric review for high-risk patients requiring hemiarthroplasty

    Wider context from the report

    “Does not having a pre-operative orthogeriatric review, recommended by an expert, risk that patients with high risk co-morbidities sometimes have a cemented hemiarthroplasty, when an uncemented one would avoid mortality from bone cement implantation, for which there is no cure or treatment and can be fatal? It is suggested that KCH NHS Foundation Trust may wish to review arrangements for pre-operative review of patients with sub-capital fractured neck of femur requiring fixation with a hemiarthroplasty. ”

    Source location

    Rosina Drury · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Neil Thomas Westerman · 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

    Neil Thomas Westerman attended Stepping Hill Hospital for an elective cholecystectomy on 2 July 2014, after which a bile leak caused septicaemia. Concerns included the pre-operative assessment being conducted by a junior doctor, incomplete operation notes about equipment and materials, and insufficient junior doctors available in practice, particularly at night.

    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 the operating consultant is informed of vital information during pre-operative assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “1. During the course of the inquest I heard evidence that the pre-operative assessment was performed by a junior doctor and not by the consultant who was to perform the procedure. This meant that the consultant was unaware of certain vital information. ”

    Source location

    Neil Thomas Westerman · 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

    Take steps with the operating surgeon to prevent recurrence of consultant-unaware pre-operative assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A concern regarding the pre-operative assessment being carried out by a junior doctor and not the consultant who was to perform the operation, meaning the consultant was unaware of vital information. This is not standard practice in the organisation and was unique to the particular operating surgeon concerned. Steps have been taken with the individual to ensure that there is not a repeat of this situation. The case has also been discussed at a General Surgery Morbidity & Mortality meeting and with the junior doctor who carried out the pre-operative assessment.”

    Source location

    2015-0091-Response-by-Stockport-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 11 March 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Discuss the case at General Surgery Morbidity and Mortality meetings and with the assessing junior doctor.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A concern regarding the pre-operative assessment being carried out by a junior doctor and not the consultant who was to perform the operation, meaning the consultant was unaware of vital information. This is not standard practice in the organisation and was unique to the particular operating surgeon concerned. Steps have been taken with the individual to ensure that there is not a repeat of this situation. The case has also been discussed at a General Surgery Morbidity & Mortality meeting and with the junior doctor who carried out the pre-operative assessment.”

    Source location

    2015-0091-Response-by-Stockport-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 11 March 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Junior doctors conducting pre-operative assessments is not standard organisational practice and was unique to the operating surgeon concerned.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A concern regarding the pre-operative assessment being carried out by a junior doctor and not the consultant who was to perform the operation, meaning the consultant was unaware of vital information. This is not standard practice in the organisation and was unique to the particular operating surgeon concerned. Steps have been taken with the individual to ensure that there is not a repeat of this situation. The case has also been discussed at a General Surgery Morbidity & Mortality meeting and with the junior doctor who carried out the pre-operative assessment.”

    Source location

    2015-0091-Response-by-Stockport-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 11 March 2015

    Open published response
  7. Central and South East Kent

    AI-generated summary

    Betty SMITH · 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

    Betty SMITH underwent surgery for a large intrathoracic hiatus hernia on 22 October 2012, deteriorated the following day, was admitted to intensive care on 24 October, and died on 25 October from intraabdominal and intrathoracic haemorrhage following repair of the hiatus hernia. Concerns included the lack of a secured High Dependency Unit bed before surgery, inadequate anaesthetic pre-assessment and the failure to refer her to a tertiary centre. The report also identified reduced intensive care capacity due to closed beds and nursing shortages as compromising 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

    Inadequate pre-operative anaesthetic assessment of high-risk patients

    Wider context from the report

    “• The pre-assessment service offered by the Anaesthetic Department is far from adequate. To review such a high risk patient with significant comorbidity from the medical records is not in the patient’s interest. Time should be afforded to the anaesthetists to review the patient at an out-patient clinic pre-operatively to assess the risks and discuss them. ”

    Source location

    Betty SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026