Recipient

Steel's Lane Health Centre

Pin Request correction

First report 12 May 2017•Latest report 12 May 2017

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 Steel's Lane Health Centre linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Nasar AHMED · 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

    Nasar died following an anaphylactic reaction contributed to by asthma while he was in the internal exclusion room at school. The concerns included delayed or inappropriate advice about using his adrenaline auto-injector, discrepancies and gaps in asthma and allergy care planning, unsuitable emergency inhaler equipment, inadequate medication review systems, and shortcomings in staff awareness, training and emergency procedures.

    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient first-aid training for staff supervising pupils

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to confirm replacement medication and complete its dose in the action plan

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provision of inappropriate emergency asthma inhalers without spacers

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to verify school medication directly during medication reviews

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide and follow immediate adrenaline auto-injector administration guidance

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of school staff to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to identify poor asthma control and excessive inhaler prescribing for specialist review

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain accurate allergy action plans with medication-use instructions

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to include a school representative in medication reviews

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain identical current care-plan copies across care settings

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Emergency-services contact procedures causing avoidable delay

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide effective refresher training and information sharing for trained staff

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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 Steel's Lane Health Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of follow-up review tracking after replacement medication is requested

    Wider context from the report

    “The respiratory paediatrician who gave evidence at inquest was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. Is this a suggestion that could be given wider consideration? 1. While staff at Nasar’s school were waiting for an ambulance, they asked for advice from the call operator about whether to administer his EpiPen. They were put through to a paramedic, who advised not to use it, I think because the classic signs of anaphylaxis were not obvious. However, the firm view expressed to me at inquest by Nasar’s respiratory paediatrician was that, if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. He explained that any harm caused by giving intra muscular adrenaline from an auto-injector in this situation is likely to be minimal, even if it proves not to have been needed, whereas the good if it is needed is potentially lifesaving. 1. The picture presented by Nasar to his respiratory paediatrician did not accord, the consultant discovered at inquest, with that given to Nasar’s general practitioner. Nasar reported to his consultant that he was experiencing few symptoms, and he did extremely well in his last lung function test. Yet his GP found Nasar’s asthma control score to be 14 out of 25, which is poor; and his GP was prescribing 30 inhalers a year, the necessity for which is well recognised as being a risk factor for death. Nasar should have seen his consultant again. There must be a way of identifying a child in his position. For instance, could there be an automatic flag raised if excess medication is prescribed? 2. The asthma pump in Nasar’s medication box at school was an Accuhaler, which I heard from his respiratory consultant is inappropriate for an emergency situation such as this, and would not have assisted him. Moreover, the appropriate inhaler should have been accompanied by a spacer for best administration. I wonder whether there is a widespread lack of understanding of the best treatment in this situation? 3. The school nurse had updated Nasar’s care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before, the allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. There must be a way of ensuring that the care plan is accurate and up to date, and that there are identical copies stored at home, school, the GP surgery and within the hospital records. 4. Even if the correct action plan had been used, it does not give the instruction that if a person has an adrenaline auto-injector and: - has any respiratory compromise, or - there is a loss of consciousness, or - if there is doubt, then the correct and potentially lifesaving course of action, regardless of the particular constellation of signs and symptoms, is to use the EpiPen and to use it immediately. This was the very firm view of Nasar’s respiratory consultant. Is there a way of disseminating this advice more widely? 1. Although Nasar’s mother was present for Nasar’s medication review conducted by the school nurse, there was no school representative such as the year learning manager there for the meeting, contrary to school policy. 2. The school nurse identified Nasar’s medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but there was no robust system for ensuring that he was booked in for further review when this was provided. 3. Although all staff at the Bow School were encouraged to familiarise themselves with pupils’ care plans, they often did not unless there was a school excursion. The internal exclusion room (IER) supervisor had not done this for the pupils in the IER. Even the deputy headteacher, who had in the past taught Nasar, did not know about Nasar’s food allergies or the fact that he had a care plan and allergy action plan when he placed Nasar in the IER. 4. Not everyone involved in trying to help Nasar was first aid trained, most notably not the learning assistant who was supervising the IER. She said that she would not have thought of looking for and retrieving his care plan. 5. Even those members of staff who were first aid trained it seemed might benefit from additional and/or more frequent training. One member of staff did not share with others the fact that Nasar had asked for this asthma pump. Another looked at his individual healthcare plan, but could not remember looking at the allergy action plan. 6. One member of staff forgot Nasar’s name. It is of course not possible for members of staff to remember the names of all pupils, but perhaps typed forms accompanied by a photograph might help? 7. Although not followed in this instance, I heard that the school policy dictates that the headteacher’s personal assistant should be contacted to telephone the emergency services. Such a stipulation would surely be guaranteed to add delay. 1. When the school nurse (employed by Compass Wellbeing) conducted a review of Nasar’s medication in May 2016, he did not have the medication stored in school in front of him at the time, but relied on its description by a school receptionist. 2. Although Nasar’s mother was present for the review, there was no school representative, such as the year learning manager (head of year), there for the meeting. 3. The school nurse then updated the care plan by using the allergy action plan (mild-moderate with asthma) instead of the correct one used the year before allergy action plan (severe with asthma). This meant that Nasar’s medication box contained an EpiPen without any description of when or how to use it. 4. He identified the medication as being out of date, and asked that in-date medication be provided, but did not diary forward to the following week to ensure that current medication was now in the box. This meant that he also did not complete the action plan with the dose of the relevant medication. These points raise issues about the actions of this particular nurse and potentially of other nurses in this role in other schools. ”
    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