Recipient

Eldercare (UK) Limited

First report 16 Aug 2017•Latest report 16 Aug 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Care-home operator. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 2
Stated actions: 5

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

5stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Eldercare (UK) Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

16 Aug2017
Manchester West
Concerns raised3
1. Failure to ensure understanding of the meaning of countersigning risk assessment checklists
2. Failure to seek medical or paramedic assistance when warranted by a person's condition
3. Failure to address inaccuracies in moving and handling risk assessment checklists during investigations
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Integrate a pain-assessment profile into the client assessment process and review the revised process with the service committee.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Redesign the investigation checklist with STOP alerts, defined sections, clearer larger formatting, and clarified second-responder accuracy checks.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Add an internal review step to investigations while preserving employees’ rights to appeal after formal investigation.
  Stated completed
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The investigation was conducted with sufficient rigour and accuracy despite concerns about its thoroughness.
  Disputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Helen Theresa Cannon · 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

Helen Theresa Cannon fell at home on 2 April 2017 and was assisted from the floor by Eldercare emergency responders without medical or paramedic assistance being sought. She had suffered internal haemorrhage from a pelvic fracture sustained in the fall and died two days later; concerns were also identified about inaccuracies in the moving and handling risk assessment and flaws in Eldercare’s subsequent investigation.

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 Eldercare (UK) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure understanding of the meaning of countersigning risk assessment checklists
Wider context from the report
“2. Following Mrs Cannon’s death Eldercare carried out an investigation. The investigation was flawed in that it did not address clear inaccuracies in the Moving and Handling Risk assessment checklist completed by one of the Emergency Responders, nor did it discover that the other Emergency Responder attending did not understand that he was agreeing with the accuracy of the information recorded on the checklist when he countersigned it. It was his belief that he signed the checklist simply to agree that he had been present. ”
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 Eldercare (UK) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to seek medical or paramedic assistance when warranted by a person's condition
Wider context from the report
“1. The emergency responders did not seek medical or paramedic assistance for Mrs Cannon because she was complaining of suffering aching rather than pain. It transpired that Mrs Cannon had suffered internal haemorrhage as a result of a pelvic fracture sustained in her fall, and this led to her death two days later. Evidence was heard at the Inquest from a Consultant Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon that in the circumstances it would have been good practice to have obtained medical or paramedic assistance for Mrs Cannon. ”
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 Eldercare (UK) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to address inaccuracies in moving and handling risk assessment checklists during investigations
Wider context from the report
“2. Following Mrs Cannon’s death Eldercare carried out an investigation. The investigation was flawed in that it did not address clear inaccuracies in the Moving and Handling Risk assessment checklist completed by one of the Emergency Responders, nor did it discover that the other Emergency Responder attending did not understand that he was agreeing with the accuracy of the information recorded on the checklist when he countersigned it. It was his belief that he signed the checklist simply to agree that he had been present. ”
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
Integrate a pain-assessment profile into the client assessment process and review the revised process with the service committee.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1. The seeking of medical assistance associated with the client expressing that she was “aching rather than in pain”. Presuming that a service can operate without the express requirement for a medical assessment, then the procedures in place at the time of the lady’s fall, the staff carried out an assessment of the client, and part of that assessment was to determine whether it was in pain. However it is clear from your concern that there is an ambiguity around the definition of ‘pain’ vs ‘ache’ and we agree that this could potentially blur the outcome of the evaluation. As a consequence a full review of the surrounding process of patient assessment and a ‘pain assessment profile questionnaire’ has been integrated within the process. This has been reviewed and agreed with the service committee at Wigan Council in order to seek their opinion and agreement as to its suitability.”

Source location
2017-0260-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 8 November 2017
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
Redesign the investigation checklist with STOP alerts, defined sections, clearer larger formatting, and clarified second-responder accuracy checks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2. With regard to the second concern expressed, namely the thoroughness of the investigation, we acknowledge, after further review of the documentation, that the review was conducted with the level of rigor and accuracy that the checklist has also been fully reviewed as part of (i) above. We have introduced “STOP” elements to alert the responders where their answers are such that further assistance may be necessary. We have also separated the checklist out into defined areas and made the layout of the checklist easier and larger which we believe will also assist the staff in completing the documentation. Additionally, the responsibility for the second responder to review the accuracy of a colleague’s client assessment has been clarified with all of the staff, and the timeline of the update has been agreed with Wigan Council.”

Source location
2017-0260-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 8 November 2017
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
Add an internal review step to investigations while preserving employees’ rights to appeal after formal investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response
“This has also been reflected within the re-design of the document. An additional step with regard to review was also been added to the internal company process of investigation in such cases, whilst still maintaining the integrity of the procedure in line with protecting the employee’s rights to appeal following a formal investigation. We believe that this will ensure that future investigations will deliver the required result.”

Source location
2017-0260-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 8 November 2017
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 investigation was conducted with sufficient rigour and accuracy despite concerns about its thoroughness.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2. With regard to the second concern expressed, namely the thoroughness of the investigation, we acknowledge, after further review of the documentation, that the review was conducted with the level of rigor and accuracy that the checklist has also been fully reviewed as part of (i) above. We have introduced “STOP” elements to alert the responders where their answers are such that further assistance may be necessary. We have also separated the checklist out into defined areas and made the layout of the checklist easier and larger which we believe will also assist the staff in completing the documentation. Additionally, the responsibility for the second responder to review the accuracy of a colleague’s client assessment has been clarified with all of the staff, and the timeline of the update has been agreed with Wigan Council.”

Source location
2017-0260-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 8 November 2017
Open published response

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised3

Failure to ensure understanding of the meaning of countersigning risk assessment checklists

Failure to seek medical or paramedic assistance when warranted by a person's condition

Failure to address inaccuracies in moving and handling risk assessment checklists during investigations

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 1