Recipient

The British Association for the Study of the Liver

Pin Request correction

First report 11 May 2026•Latest report 11 May 2026

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Health professional body. 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
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
2

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.

100%published responses found
2stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from The British Association for the Study of the Liver 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

    Tung Thanh Tran · 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

    Tung Thanh Tran, who had a renal transplant and chronic hepatitis B, died after Entecavir was inadvertently discontinued following a change to home medication delivery. He developed acute liver disease from hepatitis B reactivation, was too unwell for a liver transplant, and died on 12 September 2025. Concerns included a lack of national guidance on responsibility for monitoring and prescribing hepatitis B reactivation prevention, and insufficient specialised commissioning to maintain engagement with some patients diagnosed through Emergency Department screening.

    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 The British Association for the Study of the Liver; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of national guidance on responsibility for hepatitis B reactivation prevention monitoring and prescribing

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There is a lack of national guidance regarding which services should be responsible for the monitoring and prescribing in relation to hepatitis B reactivation prevention; (concern directed to BASL) ”
    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 The British Association for the Study of the Liver; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of specialised commissioning to maintain subsequent engagement with services after hepatitis B infection is identified through Emergency Department opt-out screening

    Wider context from the report

    “2. There is a large population of patients who are found to have hepatitis B infection through opt-out screening in Emergency Departments but there is a lack of specialised commissioning to maintain subsequent engagement with services. I heard that this differs from the position with regards to hepatitis C and HIV services, even though these patient populations are smaller (concern directed to UKHSA) ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Clinical guideline development and publication are outside the association’s remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The British Viral Hepatitis Group (BVHG) is a sub-group of the British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL). BASL is a charitable specialist society dedicated to advancing knowledge and understanding of liver diseases and to the optimal care of patients with those diseases. These aims are principally achieved through dissemination of research and sharing of clinical expertise and through the promotion of opportunities for collaboration in liver research. BASL does not lead the development or publication of clinical guidelines.”

    Source location

    Response from British Association for the study of the Liver
    Page 1 · response
    Published 10 July 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    For hepatitis B core antibody-positive patients, monitoring and prescribing responsibility lies with treating teams or hepatology services under local arrangements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• The second group is those patients who are HBsAg negative but hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) positive. These patients are at risk of hepatitis B reactivation in the setting of immunosuppressive treatment. There are many different specialties who prescribe immunosuppressive regimens, including (but not limited to) haematology, oncology, and non-liver organ transplant services. Guidance regarding the need for antiviral therapy for such patients is provided by the relevant specialist societies and frequently also in local NHS Trust guidance. There is variation between NHS Trusts as to whether this monitoring and prescribing is delivered by the treating team or whether specialist hepatology services are involved.”

    Source location

    Response from British Association for the study of the Liver
    Page 1 · response
    Published 10 July 2026

    Open published response
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

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
50%50%
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