Recipient

Ramsay Health Care UK

Pin Request correction

First report 6 Dec 2018•Latest report 6 Dec 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · 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 Ramsay Health Care UK linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Simon Healey · 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

    Simon Healey underwent right hemi-colectomy on 1 August 2017 and died on 10 August 2017 after an anastomotic leak led to faecal peritonitis, E. coli septicaemia and organ failure. The principal concerns were missed opportunities to detect the leak and sepsis earlier, inadequate escalation of care under NEWS protocols, the suitability of private hospitals’ staffing and facilities for such procedures, and an inadequate hospital investigation.

    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 Ramsay Health Care UK; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of full critical care capacity in private hospitals

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) I believe that the NEWS policies in place at private hospitals should be reviewed. This relates not only to awareness of the policy and sepsis training generally, but also consideration of the arrangements for escalating care where a patient becomes critically unwell. Most private hospitals do not have a full critical care capacity (in terms of facilities and staff) and rely instead on a consultant’s availability to attend and review the position. The Royal College of Physicians NEWS trigger thresholds have been adopted almost verbatim by this hospital, save for the category relating to the sickest patients. Whilst the trigger thresholds in the RCP documents do need to be tailored to the organisation in question, it would appear, based on the information I have been provided with, that something well below an “emergency response” can be provided in this hospital, and perhaps also the wider private sector. RCP guidelines clearly require “emergency assessment by a team with critical care competencies”. The escalation policy at Ramsay Healthcare hospitals currently (for a patient scoring 7 or above) is for the registered nurse “to immediately inform the RMO and named consultant. The named consultant to attend urgently and review the patient and agree action to be taken. Consider transfer of care to a level 2 or 3 clinical care facility i.e. HDU or ICU”. This policy clearly anticipates initial review by a consultant, outside the hospital, who may well not be available to attend on an emergency basis. ”
    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 Ramsay Health Care UK; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of specialised nursing expertise for post-operative patients at risk of leak or sepsis

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) We heard evidence that Berkshire Independent Hospital has performed 5 operations like this between 2016 and 2018, including Simon’s operation. Whilst the surgeon had experience of the procedure in the NHS, post-operative management is carried out in a general ward, caring for patients from a range of specialities. Nursing staff in this context may well never have cared for a patient after this operation, and not be familiar with the signs and symptoms to be aware of in particular, to alert clinical teams to signs which point towards leak and/or sepsis. I accept that private hospitals cannot realistically provide separate specialist wards for this. It does however raise the question of whether private hospitals should be carrying out procedures like this without specialised nurses and without facilities to escalate care without delay. ”
    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 Ramsay Health Care UK; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of escalation arrangements to provide emergency assessment by critical care-competent staff

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) I believe that the NEWS policies in place at private hospitals should be reviewed. This relates not only to awareness of the policy and sepsis training generally, but also consideration of the arrangements for escalating care where a patient becomes critically unwell. Most private hospitals do not have a full critical care capacity (in terms of facilities and staff) and rely instead on a consultant’s availability to attend and review the position. The Royal College of Physicians NEWS trigger thresholds have been adopted almost verbatim by this hospital, save for the category relating to the sickest patients. Whilst the trigger thresholds in the RCP documents do need to be tailored to the organisation in question, it would appear, based on the information I have been provided with, that something well below an “emergency response” can be provided in this hospital, and perhaps also the wider private sector. RCP guidelines clearly require “emergency assessment by a team with critical care competencies”. The escalation policy at Ramsay Healthcare hospitals currently (for a patient scoring 7 or above) is for the registered nurse “to immediately inform the RMO and named consultant. The named consultant to attend urgently and review the patient and agree action to be taken. Consider transfer of care to a level 2 or 3 clinical care facility i.e. HDU or ICU”. This policy clearly anticipates initial review by a consultant, outside the hospital, who may well not be available to attend on an emergency basis. ”
    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 Ramsay Health Care UK; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to conduct adequate and candid investigations of serious clinical events

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The final concern relates to Berkshire Independent Hospital only. The hospital investigation into these events was inadequate, particularly in relation to the decision-making of the key player in this matter, ████████ There are 2 sentences in the report regarding his involvement, and it would appear, a simple acceptance of his view that this was no more than a recognised complication of this procedure. This organisation will not learn from said cases like this if their own investigations are inadequate. We heard some evidence of review of this procedure, but I suggest that this is considered very carefully, to ensure that the risk of future deaths is reduced by adequate and candid investigation. ”
    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