Recipient

Rotherham General Hospital

Pin Request correction

First report 8 Jun 2026•Latest report 8 Jun 2026

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 Rotherham General Hospital linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South Yorkshire (West)

    AI-generated summary

    Barbara Joan COPE · 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

    Barbara Joan COPE, a 75-year-old woman, presented to Rotherham Hospital with decreased conscious levels, slurred speech and reduced oral intake, and was later found to have a high paracetamol level. The result was not reviewed or acted upon for approximately 19 hours, delaying time-critical treatment. The principal concerns were failures in communicating and following up abnormal results, reviewing investigations during clinical deterioration, and clearly assigning responsibility for ongoing care.

    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 Rotherham General Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in following up requested blood tests

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) This patient was transferred from the emergency department to the care of Surgery. A referral was then made for Gastroenterology input, they then requested a blood test for paracetamol levels. This was not followed up for 17 hours. There needs to be clear communication, understanding and record keeping of who is responsible for patient and the ongoing follow up and care in these circumstances. ”
    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 Rotherham General Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of clear allocation and recording of responsibility for ongoing patient follow-up and care

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) This patient was transferred from the emergency department to the care of Surgery. A referral was then made for Gastroenterology input, they then requested a blood test for paracetamol levels. This was not followed up for 17 hours. There needs to be clear communication, understanding and record keeping of who is responsible for patient and the ongoing follow up and care in these circumstances. ”
    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 Rotherham General Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to communicate and follow up abnormal blood results

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Although a blood sample was collected and tested in a timely manner, there was no evidence of communication and/or follow up of the abnormal result, therefore time critical medication was not commenced until 19 hours later. ”
    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 Rotherham General Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to review and act on clinical records and recent investigation results

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Even when the patient clinically deteriorated overnight and required two separate clinical reviews, the blood results were not reviewed and/or acted upon. If clinical records and recent investigations results are not reviewed then appropriate medical management will be delayed or will not occur. ”
    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