Recipient

Princess Royal University Hospital

Pin Request correction

First report 1 Sep 2021•Latest report 1 Sep 2021

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 Princess Royal University Hospital linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South London

    AI-generated summary

    Hazel Fleur Wiltshire · 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

    Hazel Fleur Wiltshire was admitted to hospital after a fall at home and died there on 19 February 2021 from pneumonia caused by the fall and Covid-19 acquired in hospital. Concerns included lengthy delays in responding to call bells, inadequate staffing and the absence of falls risk assessments across three wards.

    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 Princess Royal University Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to monitor call bell response times

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The matron who gave evidence was not aware of obtaining data on response times from the call bell system and had not introduced any other system to monitor response times. ”
    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 Princess Royal University Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate staffing levels for patients with higher dependency needs

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Staffing levels were inadequate due to higher dependency of patients with Covid. I heard that one patient had to soil herself in her hand as no one was available to assist her with her toileting needs. Mrs Wiltshire phoned home on occasion to ask her family to call the ward because they were not responding to her call bell. The family could hear other patients on the ward crying out for help. ”
    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 Princess Royal University Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to complete falls risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) Although Mrs Wiltshire was at risk of falls, no risk assessments were completed on any of the three wards in which she stayed. This suggests a systemic problem across the hospital that requires remedial action. ”
    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