PFD report

Reginald Edwin Bourn · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Aug 2023•Surrey

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 2 recipients

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 raised5

  1. Lack of national guidance for placement of nasogastric decompression tubes
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes
  2. Lack of instructions for inserting and confirming placement of nasogastric decompression tubes
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clear and followed instructions for safe equipment usePart of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes
  3. Risk of nasogastric decompression tube misplacement into the lung
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes
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

    Work with manufacturers to update instructions for use where the review identifies applicable changes.

    Stated by Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory AgencyStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 August 2023.
  2. Action

    Review manufacturers’ instructions for use for nasogastric feeding and decompression tube placement.

    Stated by Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory AgencyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 August 2023.
  3. Action

    Share the HSIB and coroner reports with the guideline surveillance team to assess whether the nasogastric tube recommendation requires updating.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 August 2023.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    A national training programme for nasogastric tube insertion falls outside NHS England’s remit.

    Stated by NHS EnglandOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Lack of national guidance for placement of nasogastric decompression tubes

Wider context from the report

“1. The expert and clinical evidence was that the insertion of any nasogastric tube is complicated and misplacement into a lung can occur because of the proximity of the trachea to the oesophagus. 2. Examples of nasogastric decompression tubes and nasogastric feeding tubes were provided in evidence. The feeding tubes have instructions both as to how to insert them and as to how to ensure that they are correctly placed. Decompression tubes have neither. 3. The expert evidence was that there is national guidance in relation to the placement of nasogastric feeding tubes but not nasogastric decompression tubes. However, as exemplified by this case, misplacement of either can prove fatal. 4. The clinicians who investigated the death could not find any nationally recognised protocols dealing with the use of, and training on the insertion of, nasogastric decompression tubes nor for checking whether they are appropriately placed. 5. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch independent report 12019/006 made recommendations in December 2020 on the placement of feeding nasogastric tubes. It found that the use of pH strips is potentially unreliable and incorrect X ray confirmation and interpretation is the most common cause of misplacement incidents. 6. One of the recommendations made was for a national standardised competency-based training programme for nasogastric tube placement and confirmation by pH testing. 7. It appears that there is no suggested training nor national guidance in relation the placement of nasogastric decompression tubes. ”

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

Lack of instructions for inserting and confirming placement of nasogastric decompression tubes

Wider context from the report

“1. The expert and clinical evidence was that the insertion of any nasogastric tube is complicated and misplacement into a lung can occur because of the proximity of the trachea to the oesophagus. 2. Examples of nasogastric decompression tubes and nasogastric feeding tubes were provided in evidence. The feeding tubes have instructions both as to how to insert them and as to how to ensure that they are correctly placed. Decompression tubes have neither. 3. The expert evidence was that there is national guidance in relation to the placement of nasogastric feeding tubes but not nasogastric decompression tubes. However, as exemplified by this case, misplacement of either can prove fatal. 4. The clinicians who investigated the death could not find any nationally recognised protocols dealing with the use of, and training on the insertion of, nasogastric decompression tubes nor for checking whether they are appropriately placed. 5. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch independent report 12019/006 made recommendations in December 2020 on the placement of feeding nasogastric tubes. It found that the use of pH strips is potentially unreliable and incorrect X ray confirmation and interpretation is the most common cause of misplacement incidents. 6. One of the recommendations made was for a national standardised competency-based training programme for nasogastric tube placement and confirmation by pH testing. 7. It appears that there is no suggested training nor national guidance in relation the placement of nasogastric decompression tubes. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clear and followed instructions for safe equipment use; 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

Risk of nasogastric decompression tube misplacement into the lung

Wider context from the report

“1. The expert and clinical evidence was that the insertion of any nasogastric tube is complicated and misplacement into a lung can occur because of the proximity of the trachea to the oesophagus. 2. Examples of nasogastric decompression tubes and nasogastric feeding tubes were provided in evidence. The feeding tubes have instructions both as to how to insert them and as to how to ensure that they are correctly placed. Decompression tubes have neither. 3. The expert evidence was that there is national guidance in relation to the placement of nasogastric feeding tubes but not nasogastric decompression tubes. However, as exemplified by this case, misplacement of either can prove fatal. 4. The clinicians who investigated the death could not find any nationally recognised protocols dealing with the use of, and training on the insertion of, nasogastric decompression tubes nor for checking whether they are appropriately placed. 5. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch independent report 12019/006 made recommendations in December 2020 on the placement of feeding nasogastric tubes. It found that the use of pH strips is potentially unreliable and incorrect X ray confirmation and interpretation is the most common cause of misplacement incidents. 6. One of the recommendations made was for a national standardised competency-based training programme for nasogastric tube placement and confirmation by pH testing. 7. It appears that there is no suggested training nor national guidance in relation the placement of nasogastric decompression tubes. ”

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

Failure to provide protocols for checking placement of nasogastric decompression tubes

Wider context from the report

“1. The expert and clinical evidence was that the insertion of any nasogastric tube is complicated and misplacement into a lung can occur because of the proximity of the trachea to the oesophagus. 2. Examples of nasogastric decompression tubes and nasogastric feeding tubes were provided in evidence. The feeding tubes have instructions both as to how to insert them and as to how to ensure that they are correctly placed. Decompression tubes have neither. 3. The expert evidence was that there is national guidance in relation to the placement of nasogastric feeding tubes but not nasogastric decompression tubes. However, as exemplified by this case, misplacement of either can prove fatal. 4. The clinicians who investigated the death could not find any nationally recognised protocols dealing with the use of, and training on the insertion of, nasogastric decompression tubes nor for checking whether they are appropriately placed. 5. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch independent report 12019/006 made recommendations in December 2020 on the placement of feeding nasogastric tubes. It found that the use of pH strips is potentially unreliable and incorrect X ray confirmation and interpretation is the most common cause of misplacement incidents. 6. One of the recommendations made was for a national standardised competency-based training programme for nasogastric tube placement and confirmation by pH testing. 7. It appears that there is no suggested training nor national guidance in relation the placement of nasogastric decompression tubes. ”

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

Lack of training for insertion of nasogastric decompression tubes

Wider context from the report

“1. The expert and clinical evidence was that the insertion of any nasogastric tube is complicated and misplacement into a lung can occur because of the proximity of the trachea to the oesophagus. 2. Examples of nasogastric decompression tubes and nasogastric feeding tubes were provided in evidence. The feeding tubes have instructions both as to how to insert them and as to how to ensure that they are correctly placed. Decompression tubes have neither. 3. The expert evidence was that there is national guidance in relation to the placement of nasogastric feeding tubes but not nasogastric decompression tubes. However, as exemplified by this case, misplacement of either can prove fatal. 4. The clinicians who investigated the death could not find any nationally recognised protocols dealing with the use of, and training on the insertion of, nasogastric decompression tubes nor for checking whether they are appropriately placed. 5. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch independent report 12019/006 made recommendations in December 2020 on the placement of feeding nasogastric tubes. It found that the use of pH strips is potentially unreliable and incorrect X ray confirmation and interpretation is the most common cause of misplacement incidents. 6. One of the recommendations made was for a national standardised competency-based training programme for nasogastric tube placement and confirmation by pH testing. 7. It appears that there is no suggested training nor national guidance in relation the placement of nasogastric decompression tubes. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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

Work with manufacturers to update instructions for use where the review identifies applicable changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We expect to complete the initial review of the IFUs by 4 January 2024. Following this review, we will work with manufacturers to update their IFU where applicable. If updates are made, the MHRA is of the opinion that they should issue a Field Safety Notice (FSN) to highlight the changes to clinicians, and ensure that their staff are fully trained in the changes so that they can provide advice to clinicians where necessary.”

Source location

Response from Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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 manufacturers’ instructions for use for nasogastric feeding and decompression tube placement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following receipt of the Regulation 28 Report we have considered point two in the matters of concern: “Feeding tubes have instructions both as to how to insert them and as to how to ensure that they are correctly placed. The decompression tubes have neither”. We have reached out to the manufacturers of nasogastric tubing to confirm their primary intended use and to review their instructions for use (IFU) for both feeding and decompression tube placement.”

Source location

Response from Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Page 1 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

Share the HSIB and coroner reports with the guideline surveillance team to assess whether the nasogastric tube recommendation requires updating.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Both the HSIB’s report on the placement of nasogastric tubes and your report concerning the death of Mr Bourn have been shared with NICE’s guideline surveillance team to see if an update to this recommendation is required.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

Share the report with the topic selection and prioritisation team for consideration of guidance on nasogastric decompression.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NICE has not published guidance on the management of small bowel obstruction, and so has not made recommendations on nasogastric decompression. Your report has been shared with our topic selection and prioritisation team to consider the need for NICE guidance in this area.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 1 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

A national training programme for nasogastric tube insertion falls outside NHS England’s remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As to national training provisions around insertion of nasogastric tubes, I asked my colleagues from the national Workforce, Training and Education (WTE) Directorate at NHS England to consider your Report and the concerns raised. They advised that such a training programme would not come under NHS England’s remit. Individual NHS Trusts are responsible for the implementation of locally recommended practice and protocols, including the staffing and availability of workforce. You may wish to engage with Firmley Health NHS Foundation Trust for further information on their specific practice and protocols regarding placement of nasogastric tubes.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

Existing Royal Marsden Manual guidance is considered sufficient, so NHS England would not routinely provide national guidance on nasogastric tube insertion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst NHS England would not routinely provide national guidance on the insertion of nasogastric decompression tubes, there is existing national guidance in the form of the Royal Marsden Manual, who have particular expertise in this area. The manual has a section on ‘Insertion of a nasogastric drainage tube’ which contains background information and specific procedural guidance for the insertion and removal of these tubes, including around pH testing. This is aimed at clinical nursing staff who would routinely be the staff responsible for placing nasogastric tubes in patients. The Manual is a well-known guide for nurses to deliver clinically effective, patient-focused, and evidence-based care.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

NICE is the statutory body responsible for developing and disseminating clinical guidance on nasogastric tube placement and confirmation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are the statutory body who lead on developing and disseminating clinical guidance and I note that you have also sent your Report to them. NHS England will carefully consider NICE’s response to you and any actions that may be required from us as a result.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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 MHRA is best placed to consider instructions for nasogastric decompression tubes as the UK regulator of medical devices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Instructions for nasogastric decompression tubes”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

    Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 August 2023.
  2. 2

    Consider NICE’s response and determine any resulting actions required from NHS England.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 August 2023.
  3. 3

    Ask regional colleagues to raise awareness with Integrated Care Boards of the case, reported concerns and learning.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 August 2023.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

  1. 1

    Product instructions for nasogastric decompression and drainage tubes fall outside NHS England’s remit.

    Stated by NHS EnglandOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  2. 2

    The MHRA is responsible for issuing product instructions for nasogastric decompression and drainage tubes.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. 3

    Individual NHS Trusts are responsible for implementing local nasogastric tube practice, protocols, staffing and workforce availability.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

Consider NICE’s response and determine any resulting actions required from NHS England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are the statutory body who lead on developing and disseminating clinical guidance and I note that you have also sent your Report to them. NHS England will carefully consider NICE’s response to you and any actions that may be required from us as a result.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

Ask regional colleagues to raise awareness with Integrated Care Boards of the case, reported concerns and learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“What is clear from your Report is that there does appear to be some inconsistency of understanding and awareness around instructions or guidance on the insertion of nasogastric decompression tubes. Considering this, NHS England has asked regional colleagues to ensure that they raise awareness of what happened in Reginald’s care, the concerns raised in your Report and the learnings with their regional Integrated Care Boards (ICBs). ICBs are responsible for planning and commissioning health services for their local populations and will be able to engage with their respective local NHS Trusts and NHS providers on this matter to ensure that there is understanding of guidance and information available.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

Product instructions for nasogastric decompression and drainage tubes fall outside NHS England’s remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You raised concern about some nasogastric tubes having product instructions and others not. Product instructions for the use of nasogastric decompression/drainage tubes would not sit within the remit of NHS England. The Coroner may wish to refer this concern to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) as they would be the organisation responsible for issuing the relevant instructions. NHS England will be happy to support the MHRA with the dissemination of any new instructions/guidance to relevant healthcare professionals.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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 MHRA is responsible for issuing product instructions for nasogastric decompression and drainage tubes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You raised concern about some nasogastric tubes having product instructions and others not. Product instructions for the use of nasogastric decompression/drainage tubes would not sit within the remit of NHS England. The Coroner may wish to refer this concern to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) as they would be the organisation responsible for issuing the relevant instructions. NHS England will be happy to support the MHRA with the dissemination of any new instructions/guidance to relevant healthcare professionals.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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

Individual NHS Trusts are responsible for implementing local nasogastric tube practice, protocols, staffing and workforce availability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As to national training provisions around insertion of nasogastric tubes, I asked my colleagues from the national Workforce, Training and Education (WTE) Directorate at NHS England to consider your Report and the concerns raised. They advised that such a training programme would not come under NHS England’s remit. Individual NHS Trusts are responsible for the implementation of locally recommended practice and protocols, including the staffing and availability of workforce. You may wish to engage with Firmley Health NHS Foundation Trust for further information on their specific practice and protocols regarding placement of nasogastric tubes.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 10 August 2023

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
3/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026