Darwin Medical Practice

Health and care · Healthcare site

Pin Request correction

First report 30 May 2019•Latest report 30 May 2019

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Addressed to Darwin Medical Practice, now represented here by Darwin Medical Practice.

    Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Geoffrey Duke · 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

    Geoffrey Duke became unwell repeatedly after a pacemaker box change in June 2016 and was later found to have infection involving the pacemaker wires. The principal concerns were that the pacemaker was not considered as a possible source of infection, no cardiology referral was made, and there was no evidence of a referral process for patients who became unwell after pacemaker surgery. He died in hospital on 20 December 2017 after deterioration during treatment and surgery.

    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 Darwin Medical Practice; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to consider pacemaker box change as a potential source of infection

    Wider context from the report

    “Mr. Duke underwent pacemaker box change on 15th June 2016. He was subsequently unwell on a number of occasions. He visited Good Hope Hospital on 6th February 2017, his GP on a number of occasions and Burton Queens Hospital in August 2017. No consideration appears to have been given that the pacemaker box change may have been the source of his undiagnosed infections. No referral was made to a Cardiologist. His problem was diagnosed on his first admission on 27th October 2017. At inquest there was no evidence of a referral process for patients having undergone pacemaker surgery who subsequently become unwell. ”
    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 Darwin Medical Practice; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide a referral process for patients who become unwell after pacemaker surgery

    Wider context from the report

    “Mr. Duke underwent pacemaker box change on 15th June 2016. He was subsequently unwell on a number of occasions. He visited Good Hope Hospital on 6th February 2017, his GP on a number of occasions and Burton Queens Hospital in August 2017. No consideration appears to have been given that the pacemaker box change may have been the source of his undiagnosed infections. No referral was made to a Cardiologist. His problem was diagnosed on his first admission on 27th October 2017. At inquest there was no evidence of a referral process for patients having undergone pacemaker surgery who subsequently become unwell. ”
    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

    Review the case and discuss its learning at a clinical governance meeting.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The clinicians at Darwin Medical Practice have met and discussed in depth this case on Thursday 20 June 2019, as part of our regular Clinical Governance Meeting.”

    Source location

    2019-0256-Response-by-Darwin-Medical-Practice
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 September 2019

    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

    Consider infection arising from pacemaker leads as a possible cause in future similar presentations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As the GP who was responsible for seeing Mr Duke during most of his visits to the surgery ahead of his death, I have been tasked to write this report, advocated by the coroner at his inquest, given that it was felt there needs to be a structured plan to consider this possibility, should there be any further future instance thereof in any other individual.”

    Source location

    2019-0256-Response-by-Darwin-Medical-Practice
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 September 2019

    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 infection could not have been identified earlier within primary care because symptoms were nonspecific and appropriate steps were taken.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The practice shared the information from HM Coroner and looked back, in detail, through Mr Duke’s medical record. It was agreed that this was an extremely unusual occurrence. It was agreed that the clinicians concerned in Primary Care had made all appropriate steps to try and elucidate. However, during his attendances at the surgery, there could be seen no way that this could have been picked up earlier within Primary Care. Mr Duke had attended on a number of occasions with relatively non-specific symptoms of malaise, with the only finding being of raised inflammatory markers; rightly this had been noted and documented and was being addressed and followed up. In fact, at the last time he was seen at the surgery, he had improved in himself, as indeed had these clinical markers. It was noted that he was concurrently having hospital admissions and attendances.”

    Source location

    2019-0256-Response-by-Darwin-Medical-Practice
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 September 2019

    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

    Responsibility for the final diagnosis lay probably more within secondary care than primary care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Given the rareness and the unexpected nature of the eventual outcome, the learning from this in Primary Care was that this is now perceived as a possibility, where it may not have been considered before; the cause for Mr Duke’s malaise. It was felt the remit for the final diagnosis lay probably more within Secondary Care, but that the lesson to be learned from this was that situations, even as unusual as this, are possible and should be considered if any future similar scenario.”

    Source location

    2019-0256-Response-by-Darwin-Medical-Practice
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 September 2019

    Open published response
Back to top

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