PFD report

David Vincent Tighe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Jan 2025•Oxfordshire

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Unavailability of Ryles tube repeat-position-check records
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes
  2. Absence of a specific policy for management of Ryles tubes
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubesPart of recurring concern: Unsafe updating of clinical policies and guidance
  3. Use of narrowly scoped and time-pressured structured reviews of incidents
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. Action

    Present and publish the Ryles tube policy and communicate it to all staff through a Trust-wide safety message.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2025.
  2. Action

    Require reviewers to confirm before completing a Structured Judgement Review whether they have a conflict of interest.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2025.
  3. Action

    Modify the Structured Judgement Review template to prompt reviewers to identify concerns about the review’s scope or focus.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 March 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The existing Structured Judgement Review process requires whole-record review, allows sufficient time, and enables concerns about care quality to be escalated.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Unavailability of Ryles tube repeat-position-check records

Wider context from the report

“Absence of a Ryles tube policy: 1. At the time of David’s death there was no separate policy for Ryles tubes, and clinicians were required to apply the modest Royal Marsden Manual guidance, and/or note that the practice consideration and care requirements for Ryles tubes were not dissimilar to that for nasogastric tubes used for enteral administration, as per the Trust’s “Insertion, Use and Care of Nasogastric Feeding Tubes in Adults: Policy and Procedure”, October 2018 (“NG feeding tube policy”), which provided limited advice. Evidence was given that a Ryles tube policy was required and that there was motivation at the Trust to provide one, albeit none has been forthcoming in the 20 months since David’s death. Evidence was also given that an NG tube “Position Record” for recording “Repeat Position Checks” was in use for Ryles tubes (similar to the “Nasogastric Feeding Tubes Position Record - Repeat Position Checks” document at Appendix 11 / page 53 of 55 of the Trust’s NG feeding tube policy), but no several staff were unaware of such a document existing for Ryles tubes, and no such Ryles tubes records were ever disclosed. Expert evidence was given that it was suboptimal care not to have a specific policy for the management of Ryles tubes given the risks associated with such an invasive procedure that required ongoing monitoring. At the time of the inquest, the Trust’s expressed intention was to provide a Ryles tube policy, and assistance was said to have been requested from the Shelford Group (an external body), although conversations about such a policy were said to have started within the Trust itself, as early as April or May of 2023. It is therefore unclear whether a Ryles tube policy would ever be produced notwithstanding one appears to be accepted as being required. The absence of policy where a need has been identified creates an obvious risk of death to future patients, due to the absence of guidance and procedure to assist clinicians undertaking such an invasive procedure. Use of a narrowly focussed structured review by a treating clinician: 2. On 18.03.2023 the Trust undertook a Structured Review to consider learning from David’s death. Evidence was given that the Structured Review was intended to be narrow in focus, as opposed to a more comprehensive serious incident report. As a result, it did not involve taking information from staff, but was a 2-hour review of medical records across five different areas, undertaken in a highly pressured environment. The Structured Review consequently overlooked considering several issues including: (i) missing bile drainage entries. (ii) missing clinical observations contrary to Trust policy (“Recognising the Acutely Ill and Deteriorating Adult Patient (RAID) Policy, April 2021). (iii) the absence of Repeat Position Checks for the Ryles tube. (iv) the absence of any written record of family concerns that were raised with a ward sister. Evidence was given by an author of the Structured Review that he considered its scope was in fact too limited, and in future, he would advise suspending such a narrow review. That author was also a clinician involved with David’s care in spite of the potential for conflict being correctly raised with the Trust in advance. Any inability to adequately investigate such incidents, without undue restriction in scope, without time pressure, and without any appearance of conflict or bias, creates a risk of death to future patients, as oversights or omissions in care, policy or procedure that may be missed by a narrow review, may remain unidentified and unremedied. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Absence of a specific policy for management of Ryles tubes

Wider context from the report

“Absence of a Ryles tube policy: 1. At the time of David’s death there was no separate policy for Ryles tubes, and clinicians were required to apply the modest Royal Marsden Manual guidance, and/or note that the practice consideration and care requirements for Ryles tubes were not dissimilar to that for nasogastric tubes used for enteral administration, as per the Trust’s “Insertion, Use and Care of Nasogastric Feeding Tubes in Adults: Policy and Procedure”, October 2018 (“NG feeding tube policy”), which provided limited advice. Evidence was given that a Ryles tube policy was required and that there was motivation at the Trust to provide one, albeit none has been forthcoming in the 20 months since David’s death. Evidence was also given that an NG tube “Position Record” for recording “Repeat Position Checks” was in use for Ryles tubes (similar to the “Nasogastric Feeding Tubes Position Record - Repeat Position Checks” document at Appendix 11 / page 53 of 55 of the Trust’s NG feeding tube policy), but no several staff were unaware of such a document existing for Ryles tubes, and no such Ryles tubes records were ever disclosed. Expert evidence was given that it was suboptimal care not to have a specific policy for the management of Ryles tubes given the risks associated with such an invasive procedure that required ongoing monitoring. At the time of the inquest, the Trust’s expressed intention was to provide a Ryles tube policy, and assistance was said to have been requested from the Shelford Group (an external body), although conversations about such a policy were said to have started within the Trust itself, as early as April or May of 2023. It is therefore unclear whether a Ryles tube policy would ever be produced notwithstanding one appears to be accepted as being required. The absence of policy where a need has been identified creates an obvious risk of death to future patients, due to the absence of guidance and procedure to assist clinicians undertaking such an invasive procedure. Use of a narrowly focussed structured review by a treating clinician: 2. On 18.03.2023 the Trust undertook a Structured Review to consider learning from David’s death. Evidence was given that the Structured Review was intended to be narrow in focus, as opposed to a more comprehensive serious incident report. As a result, it did not involve taking information from staff, but was a 2-hour review of medical records across five different areas, undertaken in a highly pressured environment. The Structured Review consequently overlooked considering several issues including: (i) missing bile drainage entries. (ii) missing clinical observations contrary to Trust policy (“Recognising the Acutely Ill and Deteriorating Adult Patient (RAID) Policy, April 2021). (iii) the absence of Repeat Position Checks for the Ryles tube. (iv) the absence of any written record of family concerns that were raised with a ward sister. Evidence was given by an author of the Structured Review that he considered its scope was in fact too limited, and in future, he would advise suspending such a narrow review. That author was also a clinician involved with David’s care in spite of the potential for conflict being correctly raised with the Trust in advance. Any inability to adequately investigate such incidents, without undue restriction in scope, without time pressure, and without any appearance of conflict or bias, creates a risk of death to future patients, as oversights or omissions in care, policy or procedure that may be missed by a narrow review, may remain unidentified and unremedied. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes; Unsafe updating of clinical policies and guidance.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Use of narrowly scoped and time-pressured structured reviews of incidents

Wider context from the report

“Absence of a Ryles tube policy: 1. At the time of David’s death there was no separate policy for Ryles tubes, and clinicians were required to apply the modest Royal Marsden Manual guidance, and/or note that the practice consideration and care requirements for Ryles tubes were not dissimilar to that for nasogastric tubes used for enteral administration, as per the Trust’s “Insertion, Use and Care of Nasogastric Feeding Tubes in Adults: Policy and Procedure”, October 2018 (“NG feeding tube policy”), which provided limited advice. Evidence was given that a Ryles tube policy was required and that there was motivation at the Trust to provide one, albeit none has been forthcoming in the 20 months since David’s death. Evidence was also given that an NG tube “Position Record” for recording “Repeat Position Checks” was in use for Ryles tubes (similar to the “Nasogastric Feeding Tubes Position Record - Repeat Position Checks” document at Appendix 11 / page 53 of 55 of the Trust’s NG feeding tube policy), but no several staff were unaware of such a document existing for Ryles tubes, and no such Ryles tubes records were ever disclosed. Expert evidence was given that it was suboptimal care not to have a specific policy for the management of Ryles tubes given the risks associated with such an invasive procedure that required ongoing monitoring. At the time of the inquest, the Trust’s expressed intention was to provide a Ryles tube policy, and assistance was said to have been requested from the Shelford Group (an external body), although conversations about such a policy were said to have started within the Trust itself, as early as April or May of 2023. It is therefore unclear whether a Ryles tube policy would ever be produced notwithstanding one appears to be accepted as being required. The absence of policy where a need has been identified creates an obvious risk of death to future patients, due to the absence of guidance and procedure to assist clinicians undertaking such an invasive procedure. Use of a narrowly focussed structured review by a treating clinician: 2. On 18.03.2023 the Trust undertook a Structured Review to consider learning from David’s death. Evidence was given that the Structured Review was intended to be narrow in focus, as opposed to a more comprehensive serious incident report. As a result, it did not involve taking information from staff, but was a 2-hour review of medical records across five different areas, undertaken in a highly pressured environment. The Structured Review consequently overlooked considering several issues including: (i) missing bile drainage entries. (ii) missing clinical observations contrary to Trust policy (“Recognising the Acutely Ill and Deteriorating Adult Patient (RAID) Policy, April 2021). (iii) the absence of Repeat Position Checks for the Ryles tube. (iv) the absence of any written record of family concerns that were raised with a ward sister. Evidence was given by an author of the Structured Review that he considered its scope was in fact too limited, and in future, he would advise suspending such a narrow review. That author was also a clinician involved with David’s care in spite of the potential for conflict being correctly raised with the Trust in advance. Any inability to adequately investigate such incidents, without undue restriction in scope, without time pressure, and without any appearance of conflict or bias, creates a risk of death to future patients, as oversights or omissions in care, policy or procedure that may be missed by a narrow review, may remain unidentified and unremedied. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Use of incident reviewers with potential conflicts of interest

Wider context from the report

“Absence of a Ryles tube policy: 1. At the time of David’s death there was no separate policy for Ryles tubes, and clinicians were required to apply the modest Royal Marsden Manual guidance, and/or note that the practice consideration and care requirements for Ryles tubes were not dissimilar to that for nasogastric tubes used for enteral administration, as per the Trust’s “Insertion, Use and Care of Nasogastric Feeding Tubes in Adults: Policy and Procedure”, October 2018 (“NG feeding tube policy”), which provided limited advice. Evidence was given that a Ryles tube policy was required and that there was motivation at the Trust to provide one, albeit none has been forthcoming in the 20 months since David’s death. Evidence was also given that an NG tube “Position Record” for recording “Repeat Position Checks” was in use for Ryles tubes (similar to the “Nasogastric Feeding Tubes Position Record - Repeat Position Checks” document at Appendix 11 / page 53 of 55 of the Trust’s NG feeding tube policy), but no several staff were unaware of such a document existing for Ryles tubes, and no such Ryles tubes records were ever disclosed. Expert evidence was given that it was suboptimal care not to have a specific policy for the management of Ryles tubes given the risks associated with such an invasive procedure that required ongoing monitoring. At the time of the inquest, the Trust’s expressed intention was to provide a Ryles tube policy, and assistance was said to have been requested from the Shelford Group (an external body), although conversations about such a policy were said to have started within the Trust itself, as early as April or May of 2023. It is therefore unclear whether a Ryles tube policy would ever be produced notwithstanding one appears to be accepted as being required. The absence of policy where a need has been identified creates an obvious risk of death to future patients, due to the absence of guidance and procedure to assist clinicians undertaking such an invasive procedure. Use of a narrowly focussed structured review by a treating clinician: 2. On 18.03.2023 the Trust undertook a Structured Review to consider learning from David’s death. Evidence was given that the Structured Review was intended to be narrow in focus, as opposed to a more comprehensive serious incident report. As a result, it did not involve taking information from staff, but was a 2-hour review of medical records across five different areas, undertaken in a highly pressured environment. The Structured Review consequently overlooked considering several issues including: (i) missing bile drainage entries. (ii) missing clinical observations contrary to Trust policy (“Recognising the Acutely Ill and Deteriorating Adult Patient (RAID) Policy, April 2021). (iii) the absence of Repeat Position Checks for the Ryles tube. (iv) the absence of any written record of family concerns that were raised with a ward sister. Evidence was given by an author of the Structured Review that he considered its scope was in fact too limited, and in future, he would advise suspending such a narrow review. That author was also a clinician involved with David’s care in spite of the potential for conflict being correctly raised with the Trust in advance. Any inability to adequately investigate such incidents, without undue restriction in scope, without time pressure, and without any appearance of conflict or bias, creates a risk of death to future patients, as oversights or omissions in care, policy or procedure that may be missed by a narrow review, may remain unidentified and unremedied. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Present and publish the Ryles tube policy and communicate it to all staff through a Trust-wide safety message.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Oncology Matron has set up a working group to review current practice, evaluate external resources and produce a Trust wide policy. The policy will set out the Trust standards for managing patients with Ryles Tubes for aspiration drainage. The working group includes nursing and medical staff across the organisation including anaesthetics, surgery, oncology and gastroenterology representatives. The first meeting was held on 3 February 2025. The policy will be presented to the OUH Clinical Policy Group by April 2025 and a Trust wide safety message will be communicated to all staff which will include the link to this policy. The publication of the policy will be followed by training of the appropriate staff through ward-based learning delivered by clinical educators.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Require reviewers to confirm before completing a Structured Judgement Review whether they have a conflict of interest.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Secondly, we have modified the SJR template to ask the author if they have any concerns about the scope or focus of the review, giving them an explicit opportunity to raise any concerns which can then be addressed proactively by the Trust through providing additional support. Prior to completing the review, the reviewer will also be asked to confirm whether they have any conflict of interest such as having been involved in the care of the patient. This will provide stronger assurance that all reviews investigate deaths without restriction in scope, time pressure or appearance of conflict or bias.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Modify the Structured Judgement Review template to prompt reviewers to identify concerns about the review’s scope or focus.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Secondly, we have modified the SJR template to ask the author if they have any concerns about the scope or focus of the review, giving them an explicit opportunity to raise any concerns which can then be addressed proactively by the Trust through providing additional support. Prior to completing the review, the reviewer will also be asked to confirm whether they have any conflict of interest such as having been involved in the care of the patient. This will provide stronger assurance that all reviews investigate deaths without restriction in scope, time pressure or appearance of conflict or bias.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review current practice and develop a Trust-wide policy for managing Ryles tubes used for aspiration drainage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no nationally recognised policy for wide bore nasogastric (Ryles) tubes for aspiration drainage. The existing OUH policy is for nasogastric (NG) tubes when used for feeding. Current practice for insertion of a wide bore tube is based on the Royal Marsden manual of clinical and cancer nursing procedures. Only one of the 9 similar Trusts who we approached has a policy which is virtually identical to the Royal Marsden manual.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2025

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

The existing Structured Judgement Review process requires whole-record review, allows sufficient time, and enables concerns about care quality to be escalated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has a robust process for training clinicians in performing Structured Judgement Reviews (SJRs). The training highlights the need to review the whole case record including the nursing records. It directs the reviewer to contact any individual or team if there are concerns about the quality of care provided. There is no limit put on the length of time to undertake an SJR. Over 230 clinicians within OUH have been trained to date.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2025

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Train appropriate staff in the Ryles tube policy through ward-based learning delivered by clinical educators.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2025.
  2. 2

    Formalise structured feedback of bereaved families’ care concerns to clinical and governance teams for inclusion and response within mortality reviews.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 March 2025.
  3. 3

    Present learning from the case at Oncology Clinical Governance, the OUH Clinical Governance Committee and the OUH Mortality Review Group.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2025.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Train appropriate staff in the Ryles tube policy through ward-based learning delivered by clinical educators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Oncology Matron has set up a working group to review current practice, evaluate external resources and produce a Trust wide policy. The policy will set out the Trust standards for managing patients with Ryles Tubes for aspiration drainage. The working group includes nursing and medical staff across the organisation including anaesthetics, surgery, oncology and gastroenterology representatives. The first meeting was held on 3 February 2025. The policy will be presented to the OUH Clinical Policy Group by April 2025 and a Trust wide safety message will be communicated to all staff which will include the link to this policy. The publication of the policy will be followed by training of the appropriate staff through ward-based learning delivered by clinical educators.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Formalise structured feedback of bereaved families’ care concerns to clinical and governance teams for inclusion and response within mortality reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this case we have strengthened our mortality review processes in two ways. Firstly, we have formalised the process for feeding back family concerns to the clinical team and incorporating these into the mortality review. The Medical Examiner Officers speak to every bereaved family of a patient who dies in OUH and feed back, in a structured format, any concerns from the family about the care of the deceased. This feedback is directed to the Divisional governance team and responsible clinical team who must then address this within the mortality review.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Present learning from the case at Oncology Clinical Governance, the OUH Clinical Governance Committee and the OUH Mortality Review Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the actions above, the learning from this case will be presented on 5 March at Oncology Clinical Governance meeting and will also be presented at the OUH Clinical Governance Committee and the OUH Mortality Review Group over the next 2 months.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 27 March 2025

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026