Recipient

North Somerset Community Partnership Community Interest Company

Pin Request correction

First report 12 Feb 2016•Latest report 12 Feb 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Community interest 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 North Somerset Community Partnership Community Interest Company linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Avon

    AI-generated summary

    Ms. Marilyn Anson · 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

    Ms. Marilyn Anson had diabetes and end-stage renal failure requiring dialysis, and developed a severe left-foot pressure ulcer. An urgent referral to the ‘hot foot’ clinic was made on 26 February 2015, but the earliest appointment offered was 17 March; the ulcer deteriorated, requiring hospital admission, antibiotics and amputation surgery, and she died after further surgery on 22 March 2015. The concerns included the prioritisation and resourcing of the clinic, coordination between relevant organisations, and guidance and standardisation of referrals.

    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 North Somerset Community Partnership Community Interest Company; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a standardised referral process for the ‘hot foot’ clinic

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) An urgent referral was made by the community nurses to the ‘hot foot’ clinic on 26th February 2015 and no appointment could be offered until 17th March 2015. (2) Before this appointment date the deceased’s ulcer had deteriorated and she had been admitted to hospital where she later died. (3) There should be a review of the means by which patients who are referred to this clinic are prioritised. (4) There should be a review of the resources allocated to this clinic in the light of demand from new and follow-up patients. (5) The NSCP should collaborate with Weston Area Health Trust and other relevant stakeholders to ensure current and future resources are used efficiently and effectively. (6) There should be provided guidance to those who refer patients to this clinic with regard to referring patients to this clinic and other options for assessment and treatment as well as a standardised means of referral so that all patients are prioritised according to clinical need. ”
    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 North Somerset Community Partnership Community Interest Company; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient resources for demand from new and follow-up patients at the ‘hot foot’ clinic

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) An urgent referral was made by the community nurses to the ‘hot foot’ clinic on 26th February 2015 and no appointment could be offered until 17th March 2015. (2) Before this appointment date the deceased’s ulcer had deteriorated and she had been admitted to hospital where she later died. (3) There should be a review of the means by which patients who are referred to this clinic are prioritised. (4) There should be a review of the resources allocated to this clinic in the light of demand from new and follow-up patients. (5) The NSCP should collaborate with Weston Area Health Trust and other relevant stakeholders to ensure current and future resources are used efficiently and effectively. (6) There should be provided guidance to those who refer patients to this clinic with regard to referring patients to this clinic and other options for assessment and treatment as well as a standardised means of referral so that all patients are prioritised according to clinical need. ”
    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 North Somerset Community Partnership Community Interest Company; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in prioritising urgent referrals to the ‘hot foot’ clinic

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) An urgent referral was made by the community nurses to the ‘hot foot’ clinic on 26th February 2015 and no appointment could be offered until 17th March 2015. (2) Before this appointment date the deceased’s ulcer had deteriorated and she had been admitted to hospital where she later died. (3) There should be a review of the means by which patients who are referred to this clinic are prioritised. (4) There should be a review of the resources allocated to this clinic in the light of demand from new and follow-up patients. (5) The NSCP should collaborate with Weston Area Health Trust and other relevant stakeholders to ensure current and future resources are used efficiently and effectively. (6) There should be provided guidance to those who refer patients to this clinic with regard to referring patients to this clinic and other options for assessment and treatment as well as a standardised means of referral so that all patients are prioritised according to clinical need. ”
    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 North Somerset Community Partnership Community Interest Company; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of guidance for referrers on clinic referral and alternative assessment and treatment options

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) An urgent referral was made by the community nurses to the ‘hot foot’ clinic on 26th February 2015 and no appointment could be offered until 17th March 2015. (2) Before this appointment date the deceased’s ulcer had deteriorated and she had been admitted to hospital where she later died. (3) There should be a review of the means by which patients who are referred to this clinic are prioritised. (4) There should be a review of the resources allocated to this clinic in the light of demand from new and follow-up patients. (5) The NSCP should collaborate with Weston Area Health Trust and other relevant stakeholders to ensure current and future resources are used efficiently and effectively. (6) There should be provided guidance to those who refer patients to this clinic with regard to referring patients to this clinic and other options for assessment and treatment as well as a standardised means of referral so that all patients are prioritised according to clinical need. ”
    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