Recipient

Nuffield Road Medical Centre

Pin Request correction

First report 10 Oct 2013•Latest report 10 Oct 2013

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
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 Nuffield Road Medical Centre linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Cambridgeshire (South and West)

    AI-generated summary

    James Edward Mansfield · 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

    James Edward Mansfield had multiple rib fractures after a fall and was later admitted with a large right haemothorax; he died on 9 March 2013. Concerns included delayed review of the hospital discharge summary and failure to assess him after stronger painkillers were requested despite his injuries, lung and chest history, and warfarin treatment.

    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 Nuffield Road Medical Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in receiving and reviewing hospital discharge summaries

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Mansfield had an xray and was discharged from Addenbrookes Hospital on 25 February. You have arranged that the hospital post discharge letters to your surgery. This was not received until 28th February 2013 by which time Mrs Mansfield had called requesting stronger pain killers. The discharge summary was only reviewed by a doctor on 6 March. You stated that only if a patient was admitted to hospital would their discharge letter get prompt attention. There was no apparent method for differentiating between discharge summaries which involved serious injuries and those which did not. ”
    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 Nuffield Road Medical Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to arrange clinical assessment after a telephone report of pain in a high-risk patient

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) When ████████ telephoned the surgery, complaining of Mr Mansfield’s pain, strong pain killers were prescribed but he was not seen despite a long history of lung and chest complaints, multiple rib fractures and treatment with warfarin. ”
    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 Nuffield Road Medical Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of differentiation and prioritisation of serious-injury discharge summaries

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Mansfield had an xray and was discharged from Addenbrookes Hospital on 25 February. You have arranged that the hospital post discharge letters to your surgery. This was not received until 28th February 2013 by which time Mrs Mansfield had called requesting stronger pain killers. The discharge summary was only reviewed by a doctor on 6 March. You stated that only if a patient was admitted to hospital would their discharge letter get prompt attention. There was no apparent method for differentiating between discharge summaries which involved serious injuries and those which did not. ”
    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