Recipient

Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 16 Dec 2016•Latest report 16 Dec 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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 Recipient name withheld linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Cheshire

    AI-generated summary

    Charles Ray Woodward · 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

    Charles Ray Woodward underwent surgery to remove a sigmoid colon tumour and was discharged home after an apparently uneventful recovery. His health then declined, and he died from peritonitis caused by a leaking anastomosis following surgery. The principal concerns were inadequate communication and liaison between the hospital, community care providers and the family, together with insufficiently robust monitoring of his condition after discharge.

    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Miscommunication between hospital and patients’ families about worrying declines in health

    Wider context from the report

    “There was inadequate communication and liaison between the hospital on the one hand and on the other hand the deceased’s GP practice and district nurses in the community who, following the deceased’s discharge from hospital, would be responsible for the deceased’s ongoing care. Further, monitoring of the deceased’s condition from Leighton Hospital was insufficiently robust and relied upon oral contact rather than ensuring the physical presence of a medical attendant, be that attendant hospital or community based. The evidence suggested that there was miscommunication between the hospital and the deceased’s family with the result that the deceased’s worrying decline in health was not appreciated by the hospital. ”
    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficiently robust monitoring of patients’ conditions through reliance on oral contact rather than physical medical attendance

    Wider context from the report

    “There was inadequate communication and liaison between the hospital on the one hand and on the other hand the deceased’s GP practice and district nurses in the community who, following the deceased’s discharge from hospital, would be responsible for the deceased’s ongoing care. Further, monitoring of the deceased’s condition from Leighton Hospital was insufficiently robust and relied upon oral contact rather than ensuring the physical presence of a medical attendant, be that attendant hospital or community based. The evidence suggested that there was miscommunication between the hospital and the deceased’s family with the result that the deceased’s worrying decline in health was not appreciated by the hospital. ”
    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate communication and liaison between hospital and community care providers after discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “There was inadequate communication and liaison between the hospital on the one hand and on the other hand the deceased’s GP practice and district nurses in the community who, following the deceased’s discharge from hospital, would be responsible for the deceased’s ongoing care. Further, monitoring of the deceased’s condition from Leighton Hospital was insufficiently robust and relied upon oral contact rather than ensuring the physical presence of a medical attendant, be that attendant hospital or community based. The evidence suggested that there was miscommunication between the hospital and the deceased’s family with the result that the deceased’s worrying decline in health was not appreciated by the hospital. ”
    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