Recipient

Livanova UK Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 13 Jan 2025•Latest report 13 Jan 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. 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 Livanova UK Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    June LIDDELL · 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

    June Liddell underwent cardiac surgery involving a heart-lung bypass machine on 21 March 2023. The machine’s automated electronic remote clamp malfunctioned and unexpectedly stopped the circulation of oxygenated blood, causing a hypoxic brain injury; she died on 1 April 2023. Concerns included an error message and loss of clamp-control icons not being adequately explained in the instructions, and maintenance not identifying wear and tear in the clamp.

    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 Livanova UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Instructions for Use failing to identify SP5 and ERC defect indications

    Wider context from the report

    “I heard that the error message “Arterial clamp is defective” is not one which is included in the Instructions for Use for the SP5 or ERC machine whilst others are explained. As such this message was not one which the Perfusionist community were aware of prior to this incident. The SP5 and ERC instructions for Use documentation does not specify that the disappearance of the icons for the control of the ERC is indicative of a defect with the ERC. The evidence was that this alarm functions in an entirely different way to other alarms on the SP5 system and this was not within the knowledge of any of the Perfusion witnesses that the Court heard from. The Manufacturers maintenance of the machine does not include a process to identify when an ERC is experiencing wear and tear which may indicate that action should be taken. ”
    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 Livanova UK Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Maintenance failing to identify ERC wear and tear

    Wider context from the report

    “I heard that the error message “Arterial clamp is defective” is not one which is included in the Instructions for Use for the SP5 or ERC machine whilst others are explained. As such this message was not one which the Perfusionist community were aware of prior to this incident. The SP5 and ERC instructions for Use documentation does not specify that the disappearance of the icons for the control of the ERC is indicative of a defect with the ERC. The evidence was that this alarm functions in an entirely different way to other alarms on the SP5 system and this was not within the knowledge of any of the Perfusion witnesses that the Court heard from. The Manufacturers maintenance of the machine does not include a process to identify when an ERC is experiencing wear and tear which may indicate that action should be taken. ”
    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