Recipient

Rossendale Nursing HomeIncludes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.

Pin Request correction

First report 23 Oct 2020•Latest report 23 Oct 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Nursing home. 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 Rossendale Nursing Home linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to: ████████ Registered Manager, Rossendale Nursing Home.

    Blackpool and the Fylde

    AI-generated summary

    Dereck John CHAPMAN · 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

    Dereck John Chapman, known to his family as John, died on 3 February 2020 from pneumonia and heart disease while recovering in hospital after surgical repair of a fractured neck of femur sustained in a fall at his nursing home. Concerns were raised about the nursing home’s insufficient response to his falls and dementia-related inability to reliably communicate symptoms, and about inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable record keeping, which were considered to pose risks of future deaths.

    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 Rossendale Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient staff response to patients with dementia who cannot reliably communicate symptoms

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Response of staff at the nursing home: John had previously been diagnosed with dementia. He was at high risk of falling. His cognitive difficulties were such that he could not fully understand questions put to him, and nor could he reliably describe his symptoms. On 13th January 2020 he was seen to fall and as he did so his crown made contact with a wheelchair. The contact was felt to be minor. Some five hours later he was found face down on the floor by his bed. He was not felt to be in pain and was returned to his bed until approximately 8am on 14th January 2020 which resulted in a transfer to hospital later that day. Having considered all of the evidence I felt that the response from nursing home staff was insufficient and did not appear to have appropriately taken into account his dementia, that he may be experiencing symptoms but was unable to reliably communicate this to staff. As it transpired he did undergo a CT head scan which confirmed he had not suffered a significant head injury but this cannot have been obvious to staff at the relevant time. I did determine that the response from the nursing home staff did not contribute to the eventual outcome for John but this may not be the case in the future. I am concerned that such an insufficient response raises a risk of future deaths. ”
    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 Rossendale Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain accurate, detailed and reliable nursing home records

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The quality of record keeping: during the course of the coronial investigation the court was provided with nursing home records and documentation. The quality of that documentation was unimpressive. Consideration of that documentation did not provide an accurate or reliable narrative as regards John’s care or the events that had taken place during the latter stages of his residence at the nursing home. By way of illustration the Nursing Home Manager had provided a document to the court which made reference to John having been found on the floor out by his bed at approximately 5.30am on the 14th January 2020 but the source of that information could not be identified. There was no evidence to support this within the documentation provided and when asked in evidence the Manager could no longer recall from where / whom she had learned of that information and therefore the court felt unable to place any weight upon it. Nursing Home documentation needs to be accurate, detailed and reliable. If a potentially significant event occurs in relation to a patient it needs to be recorded so that other staff are aware of it and can take it into account. An accurate and reliable account of events is essential in order to ensure that in the event of an investigation / review of a significant incident or fatality such investigation needs to have access to the relevant information in order to ensure lessons are learnt and appropriately reflected upon. When this is not possible it poses a risk that other deaths may arise in the future. ”
    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