Recipient

University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust

Pin Request correction

First report 1 Jun 2015•Latest report 1 Jun 2015

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · NHS trust. 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 University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    David Glyn Price · 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

    David Glyn Price suffered a heart attack in early June 2011 and underwent surgery at Wythenshawe Hospital, during which a swab was inadvertently left inside his body attached to his heart; this gradually formed an abscess. Concerns included continued warfarin prescribing despite missed anticoagulation appointments, poor handwritten clinical records, failure to act on imaging showing a foreign body, and inadequate swab-count 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 University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain an effective swab counting control during surgical procedures

    Wider context from the report

    “4. There did not seem to be in place any, or any satisfactory, swab count policy, such that none of the nurses during any of the three heart procedures, noticed that there was a discrepancy.(UHSM) ”
    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 University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain complete, dated, signed and attributable handwritten medical and nursing notes

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The quality of the handwritten notes (both medical and nursing) was nothing short of very poor. They were frequently undated, unsigned and there was no indication in block letters as to who was completing the notes, his/her professional status etc.(For UHSM) ”
    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 University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to review or discontinue repeat prescriptions when medicines are no longer needed or when required monitoring is missed

    Wider context from the report

    “1.Before he was admitted to hospital his G.P. was prescribing warfarin and this continued over many months despite the fact that he failed on three occasions to attend the anti- coagulation clinic. There is apparently no system to prevent this happening. I have noted in many inquests that people who have “repeat prescriptions” continue to get all the drugs prescribed even if they are no longer needed or wanted, thus potentially placing the patient at considerable health risk but also costing the NHS a vast amount of money for unwanted and unused drugs.(For the Secretary of State) ”
    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 University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to recognise and act on clinically significant radiology findings

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Even though a “specialist radiologist” looked at the X-Rays, and noted that they appeared to show a foreign body within the thorax of the patient, this was not read or seen by any of the treating doctors, or if it was seen it was not in any way acted upon. (This was of course an image of the rogue swab which was left in the body.) (UHSM) ”
    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