PFD report

Stephen Pettitt · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jan 2019•Newcastle upon Tyne

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised2

  1. Lack of national guidelines for training required for new interventional procedure programmes
  2. Lack of national guidelines for implementation of new interventional procedure programmes
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.2

  1. Action

    Publish a Good Practice Guide on Surgical Innovation, New Techniques and Technologies, including training, mentorship and clinical governance guidance.

    Stated by Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 May 2019.
  2. Action

    Publish and maintain Good Surgical Practice guidance covering the introduction of new surgical techniques.

    Stated by Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 May 2019.

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 guidelines for training required for new interventional procedure programmes

Wider context from the report

“The Coroner considers however there are wider national implications and that consideration to the creation of appropriate national guidelines in respect of the implementation of any New Interventional Procedure programme and the training required in respect thereof should be considered. ”

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 national guidelines for implementation of new interventional procedure programmes

Wider context from the report

“The Coroner considers however there are wider national implications and that consideration to the creation of appropriate national guidelines in respect of the implementation of any New Interventional Procedure programme and the training required in respect thereof should be considered. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Publish a Good Practice Guide on Surgical Innovation, New Techniques and Technologies, including training, mentorship and clinical governance guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the last few years, the RCS has been undertaking work to understand the impact of innovation and technology, such as robotic surgery, on patients, the surgical workforce and the healthcare system. In October 2017, we established the independent Commission on the Future of Surgery to identify the likely advances in medicine and technology in the next twenty years. The Commission published its report in December 2018, which outlined how these technological changes may affect the delivery of surgical care. Following on from this, we will shortly be publishing a Good Practice Guide on Surgical Innovation, New Techniques and Technologies. This will contain a chapter on ‘training in new techniques’ that will state:”

Source location

2019-0037-Response-by-Royal-College-of-Surgeons
Page 2 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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

Publish and maintain Good Surgical Practice guidance covering the introduction of new surgical techniques.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2014, we published Good Surgical Practice, a baseline of clear and assessable standards for individual surgeons and their practice, which contains a chapter on the ‘introduction of new techniques’. The guidance seeks to exemplify the standards required of all doctors by the GMC in the context of surgery. In relation to Mr Pettitt’s robotically assisted mitral valve operation, the guidance states:”

Source location

2019-0037-Response-by-Royal-College-of-Surgeons
Page 2 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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.5

  1. 1

    Establish and complete an independent Commission on the Future of Surgery to assess technological advances and their effects on surgical care.

    Stated by Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 May 2019.
  2. 2

    Continue monitoring technological and innovation advances to support surgical-care quality and patient safety.

    Stated by Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 May 2019.
  3. 3

    Write to Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to clarify the distinction between mentors and proctors in new-technique guidance.

    Stated by Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 May 2019.
  4. 4

    Continue reminding RCS members about expected standards for training, teamwork, proctors and hospital governance when introducing new surgical procedures.

    Stated by Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 May 2019.
  5. 5

    Highlight relevant new-technique training and consent guidance to members, fellows, NHS trusts and independent hospitals through newsletters and communications.

    Stated by Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 May 2019.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The College has limited powers to require surgeons and hospital trusts to follow its non-legally binding guidelines.

    Stated by Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Establish and complete an independent Commission on the Future of Surgery to assess technological advances and their effects on surgical care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the last few years, the RCS has been undertaking work to understand the impact of innovation and technology, such as robotic surgery, on patients, the surgical workforce and the healthcare system. In October 2017, we established the independent Commission on the Future of Surgery to identify the likely advances in medicine and technology in the next twenty years. The Commission published its report in December 2018, which outlined how these technological changes may affect the delivery of surgical care. Following on from this, we will shortly be publishing a Good Practice Guide on Surgical Innovation, New Techniques and Technologies. This will contain a chapter on ‘training in new techniques’ that will state:”

Source location

2019-0037-Response-by-Royal-College-of-Surgeons
Page 2 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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

Continue monitoring technological and innovation advances to support surgical-care quality and patient safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCS is deeply concerned by the death of Mr Pettitt and is keen to ensure that our members are aware of relevant guidance in relation to training and consent when introducing new surgical techniques and technologies. To coincide with the publication of our Good Practice Guide on Surgical Innovation, New Techniques and Technologies, we are planning to highlight all the relevant guidance to our members and fellows through our newsletters, and communications with NHS hospital trusts and independent hospitals. We will also continue to monitor advances in technology and innovation to support the quality of surgical care and enhance patient safety.”

Source location

2019-0037-Response-by-Royal-College-of-Surgeons
Page 4 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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

Write to Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to clarify the distinction between mentors and proctors in new-technique guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although we were pleased to see the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s guidance on the Introduction and Development of New Clinical Interventional Procedures includes a section on the use of proctors, we believe there may be some confusion over terminology within the document. As the RCS understands it, proctors do not have a training role. The terms proctor, trainer, supervisor and coach, are often used interchangeably as terms to describe a person identified to provide support and education. The College has used the term mentor to describe this role in its guidance as that is the term most surgeons use and understand in this context. We will be writing to the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to this effect.”

Source location

2019-0037-Response-by-Royal-College-of-Surgeons
Page 3 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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

Continue reminding RCS members about expected standards for training, teamwork, proctors and hospital governance when introducing new surgical procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“enclosed email has been sent to SCTS members emphasising the importance of teamwork, appropriate training, the use of proctors and full engagement with hospital governance procedures when the new surgical procedures are being planned. Both the RCS and SCTS will continue to regularly remind their members about the standards we expect of surgeons throughout the UK.”

Source location

2019-0037-Response-by-Royal-College-of-Surgeons
Page 4 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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

Highlight relevant new-technique training and consent guidance to members, fellows, NHS trusts and independent hospitals through newsletters and communications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCS is deeply concerned by the death of Mr Pettitt and is keen to ensure that our members are aware of relevant guidance in relation to training and consent when introducing new surgical techniques and technologies. To coincide with the publication of our Good Practice Guide on Surgical Innovation, New Techniques and Technologies, we are planning to highlight all the relevant guidance to our members and fellows through our newsletters, and communications with NHS hospital trusts and independent hospitals. We will also continue to monitor advances in technology and innovation to support the quality of surgical care and enhance patient safety.”

Source location

2019-0037-Response-by-Royal-College-of-Surgeons
Page 4 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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 College has limited powers to require surgeons and hospital trusts to follow its non-legally binding guidelines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCS supports good practice in surgery and service provision through the development of clinical standards and guidelines on specific areas. I should emphasise that they have no legal force, and while we strongly advise surgeons and hospital trusts to follow our guidelines, we have limited powers if they choose not to. Although we are not aware of the”

Source location

2019-0037-Response-by-Royal-College-of-Surgeons
Page 1 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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