Recipient

Littleborough Home for the Elderly

Pin Request correction

First report 10 Jul 2015•Latest report 10 Jul 2015

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Residential care home. 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
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 Littleborough Home for the Elderly linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Dorothy McDermott · 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

    Dorothy McDermott, who was 80 and had been housebound for 2½ years, fell three times at home and was placed in emergency respite care. The care home provided residential but not nursing care, and staff were not trained to examine or care for pressure sores. An inquest concluded that opportunities to examine her sacrum were missed, and she died in hospital after developing a Grade 4 pressure sore and septicaemia.

    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 Littleborough Home for the Elderly; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of care staff training in the examination and care of pressure sores

    Wider context from the report

    “Dorothy McDermott was 80 years old. She had been housebound for 2½ years. She had been diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and was confused. On the 17th January 2015, she had fallen three times whilst at home. Paramedics advised a rapid response but they finished at 5.30pm. Mrs McDermott required a place of safety. Following discussions between the Local Authority’s emergency duty team and the out of hours service for the district nursing team, emergency respite care was arranged at the Littleborough Care Home to which Mrs McDermott was conveyed during the early hours of the 18th January. It was envisaged that Mrs McDermott would be reassessed on the 19th January. The Littleborough Care Home offered residential but not nursing care. Care staff at the home were not trained in either the examination for or care of pressure sores. That placement was inappropriate. The rationale for that decision one of availability with the facility of a ground floor bedroom which had been newly decorated. Whilst appreciating that the decision to procure respite care was made ‘out of hours’ the overriding concern given the extent of Mrs McDermott’s vulnerability should have been to obtain a suitable placement which guaranteed a place of safety. Whilst not wishing to be prescriptive, formal Guidance is required to as to ensure that vulnerable individuals are appropriately placed by the Agencies involved. ”
    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 Littleborough Home for the Elderly; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure suitable placements guaranteeing a place of safety for vulnerable individuals

    Wider context from the report

    “Dorothy McDermott was 80 years old. She had been housebound for 2½ years. She had been diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and was confused. On the 17th January 2015, she had fallen three times whilst at home. Paramedics advised a rapid response but they finished at 5.30pm. Mrs McDermott required a place of safety. Following discussions between the Local Authority’s emergency duty team and the out of hours service for the district nursing team, emergency respite care was arranged at the Littleborough Care Home to which Mrs McDermott was conveyed during the early hours of the 18th January. It was envisaged that Mrs McDermott would be reassessed on the 19th January. The Littleborough Care Home offered residential but not nursing care. Care staff at the home were not trained in either the examination for or care of pressure sores. That placement was inappropriate. The rationale for that decision one of availability with the facility of a ground floor bedroom which had been newly decorated. Whilst appreciating that the decision to procure respite care was made ‘out of hours’ the overriding concern given the extent of Mrs McDermott’s vulnerability should have been to obtain a suitable placement which guaranteed a place of safety. Whilst not wishing to be prescriptive, formal Guidance is required to as to ensure that vulnerable individuals are appropriately placed by the Agencies involved. ”
    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