Recipient

Good Hope Hospital

Pin Request correction

First report 25 Jun 2015•Latest report 30 May 2019

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Healthcare site. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

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.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. 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 Good Hope Hospital; 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 Good Hope Hospital; 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

  2. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Lottie Reid · 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

    Lottie Reid, aged 95, was readmitted to hospital with haematemesis and melaena and died on 29 January 2015. The inquest concluded that she died from bleeding duodenal ulcers on a background of other significant natural disease, with her death probably accelerated by bleeding exacerbated by anticoagulant therapy. Concerns were raised that the medication administration chart at the intermediate care centre did not mirror the hospital discharge documentation and that there was no clear protocol for checking discrepancies, particularly at weekends.

    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 Good Hope Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure that the electronic medication administration chart mirrors the discharge medication documentation

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That following discharge from Good Hope Hospital to Perry Trees Intermediate Care Centre the Printed Electronic Prescribing Medication Adm Chart did not mirror the medication referred to in the Discharge Letter and Prescription. (2) There did not appear to be a protocol in place whereby such discrepancies could be easily checked and this appeared to be especially difficult to do at weekends ”
    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 Good Hope Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a protocol for easily checking medication discrepancies

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That following discharge from Good Hope Hospital to Perry Trees Intermediate Care Centre the Printed Electronic Prescribing Medication Adm Chart did not mirror the medication referred to in the Discharge Letter and Prescription. (2) There did not appear to be a protocol in place whereby such discrepancies could be easily checked and this appeared to be especially difficult to do at weekends ”
    Open source report
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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
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