Recipient

Bow School

Pin Request correction

First report 12 May 2017•Latest report 12 May 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Maintained school. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
9

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
24

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
24stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Bow School linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Nasar AHMED · 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

    Nasar died following an anaphylactic reaction contributed to by asthma while he was in the internal exclusion room at school. The concerns included delayed or inappropriate advice about using his adrenaline auto-injector, discrepancies and gaps in asthma and allergy care planning, unsuitable emergency inhaler equipment, inadequate medication review systems, and shortcomings in staff awareness, training and emergency procedures.

    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. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient first-aid training for staff supervising pupils

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to confirm replacement medication and complete its dose in the action plan

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provision of inappropriate emergency asthma inhalers without spacers

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to verify school medication directly during medication reviews

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide and follow immediate adrenaline auto-injector administration guidance

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of school staff to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to identify poor asthma control and excessive inhaler prescribing for specialist review

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain accurate allergy action plans with medication-use instructions

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to include a school representative in medication reviews

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain identical current care-plan copies across care settings

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Emergency-services contact procedures causing avoidable delay

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide effective refresher training and information sharing for trained staff

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Bow School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of follow-up review tracking after replacement medication is requested

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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

    Require pastoral staff to attend initial and review meetings for Individual Health Care Plans.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Notwithstanding this the school has revised the relevant policy to require that a member of pastoral team responsible for the child, (usually the Year Learning Manager [YLM] or the Year Learning Assistant [YLA]) attends the initial meeting and all reviews. It has also been amended so it no longer requires a first aider to contact the headteacher’s personal assistant to call emergency services, but rather requires staff do this immediately and then”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 May 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 all pupil Individual Health Care Plans and verify that emergency-box medicines are prescribed and in date.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Coroner also raised concerns that the system in place for ensuring that actions arising from individual health plans (‘IHP’) and medication reviews were undertaken was not sufficiently robust. Since Nasar’s death, the school’s Safeguarding Committee has undertaken a thorough review of all IHPs for pupils in the school. This included ensuring that all medicines kept within emergency boxes at the school are as prescribed and in date.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Use Safeguarding Committee governance, scheduling, spot checks and compliance reporting to monitor Individual Health Care Plans and medicines.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Safeguarding Committee⁵ has developed a flowchart to outline the responsibilities under the ‘Support students with medical needs’ policy. The committee has an agenda item ‘IHP and medication reviews’ so that effectiveness of managing medical needs is considered at each meeting. It is responsible for setting the schedule of meetings for all IHP or medication reviews on a half termly basis. The school administrator is required to liaise with Compass Wellbeing and the YLM to ensure all parties are present at meetings. The Designated Safeguarding Lead (‘DSL’) also receives details of IHP meetings and the decisions made and conducts spot checks on the IHPs and medicines so that compliance with expectations can be maintained. The DSL provides a compliance report each half term to the safeguarding committee.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Provide all staff access to pupils’ medical-needs information through electronic registers and require confirmation that key medical-needs and safeguarding policies are understood.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Coroner commented that school staff were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupil’s care plans and required to do so for school excursions, but in other circumstances staff may not have been familiar with health needs of all pupils. In response to this the school now have a clear understanding between Compass Wellbeing, parents and pupils that information regarding a child’s medical needs will be shared with all staff on the basis that all staff need to have access to, and understanding of, this information. This information has been made more visible for staff as detailed below and policies and processes have been revised to reflect this common understanding, for example, all staff have access to the school’s electronic medical needs registers. The amended policies are due to be ratified by the Governing Body on the 12.07.17.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 3 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Hold monthly school-nurse meetings for trained first aiders to share current advice, guidance and practice.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Those members of staff who have already completed a HSE approved first aid training course will, from September 2017, meet monthly with the school nurse to share information and review latest advice, guidance and practice. The school’s half-termly safeguarding bulletins contain an updated list of all first aiders in the school and they have agreed to run regular briefings for staff at the start of each half-term. They will also run briefings for pupils on a rolling programme so that there is increased awareness of who on the staff team have first aid training.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 5 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Deliver additional HSE-approved first-aid training, prioritising staff supervising higher-risk or small-group settings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The school is also grateful for the opportunity this report affords them to provide assurance that staff and pupils have been offered additional first aid training and to report that the whole school community have embraced those opportunities. A further 25 members of staff have volunteered to complete a first aid course approved by the HSE over the next academic year, many have already completed their training including all staff responsible for supervising internal exclusion room. The safeguarding committee have devised a first aid training plan, which was presented to and approved by the Governing Body’s standards committee on the 14.06.17. This ensures that staff supervising areas of small group work, learning assistants and those who lead in higher risk subjects (e.g. PE, technology and science) are prioritised for HSE first aid training.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 5 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Brief staff on recognising and responding to escalating asthma and anaphylaxis symptoms, and repeat the briefing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “On the 05.06.17 a member of the Governing Body who is also a GP provided a briefing to all staff on the policy and procedures for supporting students with medical needs. . He explained how to identify Asthma and Anaphylaxis symptoms which indicate medical needs were escalating or becoming critical and how to respond. This briefing is due to be repeated in September 2017.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 5 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Provide asthma, allergy and EpiPen training to staff who have completed HSE first-aid training, alongside refresher training.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “First aid training programmes are added to the calendar at the start of each academic year, with staff identified for each course. This can only be amended on the authority of the Headteacher. In addition, those who have already completed their HSE first aid programme will receive an additional one-day training on asthma, allergies and Epi-Pen. This is in addition to the first aid training at work refresher courses.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 5 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Brief staff on pupils’ medical needs, provide recurring reminders and conduct Safeguarding Committee compliance spot checks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The school’s SENDCo will provide briefings to all staff for children with medical needs each September. Further briefings will be provided to all staff if a child with medical needs starts in year and all new staff receive the briefing as part of their induction if they do not start in September or if a child’s needs change following a review. All staff received a briefing on the pupils with medical needs on the 05.06.17 and will receive half-termly reminders. Those reminders will also require they review their ‘class context sheets’ to ensure medical information for students is up to date. The Safeguarding Committee will undertake spot checks to ensure compliance, the first of which will be completed by the 04.07.17.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 3 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Display asthma and allergic-reaction response posters throughout the school.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To raise awareness more widely across the school posters have been placed in all classrooms and throughout the school, including in the dining pavilion. These detail the steps to take where someone is having an asthma attack or allergic reaction. Allergens posters continue to be placed at key sites within the dining pavilion and menus will be annotated with all allergens, not just at Bow School but in all schools supplied by the catering provider. The Executive Headteacher is working closely with the catering provider to ensure that catering staff are trained and aware of their responsibilities within the school’s policies and has been assured that the annotated menus will be in place by the beginning of September 2017.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 5 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Maintain and half-termly update prominently displayed registers of pupils with medical needs, including symptoms and key actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since the Inquest the Deputy Head teacher responsible for safeguarding has reviewed all information held in respect of children with medical needs to ensure that the IHP register, Asthma Register, Allergies Register and Other conditions register is accurate. The registers are now discreetly displayed by type of need, the pupil’s name and photograph, symptoms and key actions in each of the staff common areas, the kitchen, learning support areas and internal exclusion room. These are reviewed and updated on a half-termly basis.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 4 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Attach Individual Health Care Plans and medical alerts to electronic pupil records and add allergy alerts to the cashless catering system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition, all IHPs are being scanned and attached to the relevant child’s electronic record (the SIMS profile) so that it can be viewed quickly by staff. An alert symbol has also been added to relevant pupils’ SIMS profiles so that it is immediately visible if a child has an IHP. Alerts have also been added to the school’s Cashless Catering System to flag students with allergies so that staff are aware of those children. Catering staff are encouraged to liaise with the relevant pastoral team or Compass Wellbeing to check if unsure and continue to challenge if they feel a pupil’s choice may place them at risk. There is also a procedure for catering staff to report concerns where children with allergies regularly seek to purchase food containing allergens.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 3 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Implement monitored procedures for arranging and following up Individual Health Care Plan and medication reviews, including senior oversight and deadline reminders.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Executive Headteacher, along with Headteacher representatives from across the area, has been invited by the Local authority to meet to discuss the school nursing service as part of a scheduled contract renewal process. This meeting is due to take place later this year, but it is understood that the concerns identified during the Inquest will inform that process. In the interim the school has been working with Compass Wellbeing to clarify the procedure for setting up IHP meetings and medication reviews. The school has had additional processes to ensure this procedure is robustly monitored at senior level. The procedure requires that, in all cases an update of the pupil’s medical need is required at each review.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    Parents or the school nurse are principally responsible for contacting the pupil’s GP or other treating medical professionals before reviews.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Principally it remains the responsibility of the child’s parents or school nurse to make contact with the child’s GP or other medical professionals involved in their care prior to the meeting. Where, at the review meeting, this hasn’t been done or there is any uncertainty regarding the pupil’s current need the school nurse is required to follow up with direct contact to the pupil’s GP and confirm the position to the school administrator by email. The deputy head responsible for safeguarding is also copied into those emails. The procedure also differentiates between medication reviews and IHP meetings/reviews to ensure that necessary follow up can be scheduled separately. For example, where actions are required as a result of the medication review, a follow up review is scheduled for the following week.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    School staff are not expected to perform first aid to the standard of clinicians; guidance requires only their best endeavours to secure pupil welfare.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Coroner rightly recognised within the narrative determination this was ‘a very pressured situation’. She queried whether staff may have responded differently if they had received training or, for those who had, whether they may benefit from additional first aid training. It is important to highlight that staff administering first aid are not expected to perform those responsibilities to the standard of clinicians trained to perform emergency medical interventions where they are held. The guidance simply requires that staff use their ‘best endeavours’ to secure the welfare of the pupil. It is understood that the Coroner did not intend her comments to be taken as a criticism of the actions of staff on that day. To do so may well have an unintended consequence of deterring otherwise willing volunteers from taking on these vital responsibilities.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 4 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    There is no requirement for all school staff to be first aiders, and teachers are not contractually required to provide first aid.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A fourth issue identified by the Coroner was that not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained. This is correct, however, there is no requirement that all school staff are first aiders. The ‘First aid in schools’ guidance⁶ is explicit that it is not a condition of a teacher’s employment contract that they provide first aid. It is a matter for individuals whether they wish to volunteer for those responsibilities, though as an employer a school’s Governing Body must ensure that they have sufficient first aiders to provide first aid for school staff. The Health and Safety Executive (‘HSE’) advises that organisations such as schools consider possible risks to pupils and visitors within their risk assessments and allow for this when determining the number of first aiders personnel they may require.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 4 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    The school had an appropriate number of first aiders on site at all times, including when the death occurred.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is important to clarify that the school does have an appropriate number of first aiders on site at all times including, on the 10.11.16. Furthermore, whilst it wasn’t referenced within the narrative determination, the school’s arrangements to safeguard students was subject to review by OFSTED on the 17.11.16 and found to be effective, in particular OFSTED commended the rigour of risk assessments for school trips.”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 4 · response
    Published 3 May 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

    The school’s policy did not require staff attendance at annual Individual Health Care Plan reviews and complied with relevant national guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Coroner commented within the report that Nasar’s mother was present for the medication review conducted by the school nurse on the 03.05.16, but that a member of staff wasn’t present. She commented that this was contrary to the school policy. It should be noted that, at time of Nasar’s death, the ‘Supporting Student with medical needs’ policy did not require a member of staff to attend the annual review of an Individual Health Care Plan; rather the requirement was that staff were involved in the original decision to have a plan.¹ It should also be noted that this policy complied with the standards expected by national guidance for schools including ‘Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions statutory guidance for governing bodies’,² the ‘Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice’³ and ‘Keeping children safe in Education’.⁴”

    Source location

    Response from Bow School
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 May 2023

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
38%29%33%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026