PFD report

Mr Osland · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Feb 2022•North East Kent

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
6

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 raised6

  1. Failure to ensure reconnection of the central monitor to the room monitor after silencing an ‘OFF COMS’ alert
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient-monitoring alarm systems
  2. Failure to ensure timely rectification of disconnections between room and central monitors
  3. Failure to include room alarm audibility in handover equipment checks
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure essential clinical equipment and supplies are available and serviceablePart of recurring concern: Unreliable patient-monitoring alarm systems
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.6

  1. Action

    Operate a strengthened EME fault-reporting process with call logging, receipt confirmation and EQUIP tracking of outstanding or recurring issues.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 February 2022.
  2. Action

    Review alarm levels during configuration of current ICU monitors and agree settings through the configuration working group.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 February 2022.
  3. Action

    Document EME-requested alarm-volume changes and complete an individualised risk assessment in the patient record.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 February 2022.

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 ensure reconnection of the central monitor to the room monitor after silencing an ‘OFF COMS’ alert

Wider context from the report

“3) After silencing the ‘OFF COMS’ alert on the central monitor, no steps were taken to ensure it was reconnected to the room monitor. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient-monitoring alarm systems.

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 ensure timely rectification of disconnections between room and central monitors

Wider context from the report

“5) Specifically in respect of points 3 & 4, it is unclear as to when the ‘OFF COMS’ disconnection between the room and central monitor would have been rectified had it not come to light after Mr Osland’s arrest. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 include room alarm audibility in handover equipment checks

Wider context from the report

“1) Nursing staff are unaware that the room monitor volume could be reduced to the point where it was not audible outside the room – as a result, the volume of the room alarm was not part of hand over equipment checks. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure essential clinical equipment and supplies are available and serviceable; Unreliable patient-monitoring alarm systems.

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 respond to persistent ‘OFF COMS’ monitor notifications

Wider context from the report

“4) No steps had been taken to respond to the ‘OFF COMS’ notification on the central monitor screen which had persisted for the 5 days prior to the 26th April 2021 ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 defined nursing response steps for ‘OFF COMS’ alerts and notifications

Wider context from the report

“6) It was unclear what steps nurses were supposed to take when confronted with an ‘OFF COMS’ alert or screen notification. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 document reductions in room monitor alert volume

Wider context from the report

“2) The circumstances in which the room monitor alerts were reduced were not documented, and accordingly subsequent staff would not be aware that they had been so reduced ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient-monitoring alarm systems.

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

Operate a strengthened EME fault-reporting process with call logging, receipt confirmation and EQUIP tracking of outstanding or recurring issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this incident, EME have carried out an inspection of the ICU Department’s electrical supply system. As a result, they identified faults with the cabling which could have affected the connection of monitors to the central monitor. The entirety of the cabling in ICU at Kent & Canterbury Hospital has been replaced to improve connectivity and since this has been carried out there have been no issues with connectivity. If the ‘OFF COMS’ alert appears, the process is to inform the Nurse in Charge and report this to EME as soon as the staff are made aware of the issue. The process of reporting issues to EME is now more robust with logging and receipt of calls and the Trust now uses a dedicated IT system (EQUIP) which allows for a review of any issues that are outstanding or recurring themes that need to be acted upon.”

Source location

2022-0060-Response-from-Kent-Canterbury-Hospital_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2022

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 alarm levels during configuration of current ICU monitors and agree settings through the configuration working group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, if EME have been requested to change the volumes, this will be documented along with an individualised risk assessment in the patient record. In future, a review of alarm levels will take place as part of our configuration of current ICU monitors but I can assure you that volumes will be set at a level which will be agreed by the configuration working group which comprises of critical care, medical devices, EME and GE Healthcare (manufacturer of the monitors).”

Source location

2022-0060-Response-from-Kent-Canterbury-Hospital_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2022

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

Document EME-requested alarm-volume changes and complete an individualised risk assessment in the patient record.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, if EME have been requested to change the volumes, this will be documented along with an individualised risk assessment in the patient record. In future, a review of alarm levels will take place as part of our configuration of current ICU monitors but I can assure you that volumes will be set at a level which will be agreed by the configuration working group which comprises of critical care, medical devices, EME and GE Healthcare (manufacturer of the monitors).”

Source location

2022-0060-Response-from-Kent-Canterbury-Hospital_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2022

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

Conduct and record twice-daily audits confirming that every ICU monitor is connected to the central monitoring system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, we have implemented twice daily audit checks on the central monitoring system to ensure that it is connected with every monitor in ICU - these checks are recorded in the unit diary.”

Source location

2022-0060-Response-from-Kent-Canterbury-Hospital_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2022

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

Replace all ICU cabling at Kent & Canterbury Hospital to improve connectivity between room and central monitors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this incident, EME have carried out an inspection of the ICU Department’s electrical supply system. As a result, they identified faults with the cabling which could have affected the connection of monitors to the central monitor. The entirety of the cabling in ICU at Kent & Canterbury Hospital has been replaced to improve connectivity and since this has been carried out there have been no issues with connectivity. If the ‘OFF COMS’ alert appears, the process is to inform the Nurse in Charge and report this to EME as soon as the staff are made aware of the issue. The process of reporting issues to EME is now more robust with logging and receipt of calls and the Trust now uses a dedicated IT system (EQUIP) which allows for a review of any issues that are outstanding or recurring themes that need to be acted upon.”

Source location

2022-0060-Response-from-Kent-Canterbury-Hospital_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2022

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

Default ICU monitor alarm volumes to levels 8–10 and restrict volume changes to EME staff on request.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The volumes on the monitors have now been defaulted to 8-10 (which is the highest volume on the machine) and cannot be reduced by the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) staff. ICU staff are now not able to reduce and set the alarms on these machines themselves and this can only be carried out by the Trust’s Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Department (EME) on request. As a result of this change, volumes of the alarms will not routinely be required to be discussed at handover.”

Source location

2022-0060-Response-from-Kent-Canterbury-Hospital_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 February 2022

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.1

  1. 1

    Ensure all recommendations arising from the incident, inquest and PFD report are addressed and continue to be monitored through the Critical Care Steering Group.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 February 2022.

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

Ensure all recommendations arising from the incident, inquest and PFD report are addressed and continue to be monitored through the Critical Care Steering Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that as a result of this incident, the inquest and your PFD Report the Critical Care Steering Group considered all matters associated with Mr Osland’s care and will ensure all recommendations are addressed and continue to be monitored.”

Source location

2022-0060-Response-from-Kent-Canterbury-Hospital_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2022

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