PFD report

Lee Kenneth Eustace · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Dec 2025•Devon, Plymouth and Torbay

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 raised3

  1. Failure to comply with Regulation 20 statutory duty of candour
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of Duty-of-Candour processes for significant incidents
  2. Failure to provide relevant documentation to the Coroner under Schedule 5 disclosure duties
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable disclosure of relevant evidence in formal proceedingsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable preservation and disclosure of material for death investigations
  3. Failure to investigate incidents in accordance with Datix requirements
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
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.1

  1. Action

    Report identified care concerns through the incident reporting system and provide Duty of Candour, investigation and learning.

    Stated by University Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 2025.

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 comply with Regulation 20 statutory duty of candour

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that the Trust has not complied with its statutory duty under Regulation 20 of the Regulations; has not provided relevant documentation to the Coroner in accordance with its disclosure duties under Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ("CJA"); and has not investigated this incident in accordance with the requirement to do so under Datix. I am concerned that if such omissions exist in other cases that there is a risk of deaths occurring in the future due to a lack of proper incident investigation and adherence to statutory requirements relating to patient safety and investigation of deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of Duty-of-Candour processes for significant incidents.

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 relevant documentation to the Coroner under Schedule 5 disclosure duties

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that the Trust has not complied with its statutory duty under Regulation 20 of the Regulations; has not provided relevant documentation to the Coroner in accordance with its disclosure duties under Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ("CJA"); and has not investigated this incident in accordance with the requirement to do so under Datix. I am concerned that if such omissions exist in other cases that there is a risk of deaths occurring in the future due to a lack of proper incident investigation and adherence to statutory requirements relating to patient safety and investigation of deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable disclosure of relevant evidence in formal proceedings; Unreliable preservation and disclosure of material for death investigations.

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 investigate incidents in accordance with Datix requirements

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that the Trust has not complied with its statutory duty under Regulation 20 of the Regulations; has not provided relevant documentation to the Coroner in accordance with its disclosure duties under Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ("CJA"); and has not investigated this incident in accordance with the requirement to do so under Datix. I am concerned that if such omissions exist in other cases that there is a risk of deaths occurring in the future due to a lack of proper incident investigation and adherence to statutory requirements relating to patient safety and investigation of deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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

Report identified care concerns through the incident reporting system and provide Duty of Candour, investigation and learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• If any triggers are identified, a Structured Judgement Review (SJR) is undertaken by an independent clinician.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 18 December 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.5

  1. 1

    Undertake an independent clinician Structured Judgement Review when mortality-screening triggers are identified.

    Stated by University Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
  2. 2

    Screen all adult surgical-service deaths using a standardised Stage 1 mortality review tool.

    Stated by University Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
  3. 3

    Review all coroner referrals through the Divisional Quality Team to identify concerns in care at an early stage.

    Stated by University Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
  4. 4

    Standardise the Gastro-Oesophagectomy pathway and stop using feeding jejunostomies post-operatively for this patient group.

    Stated by University Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
  5. 5

    Revise the jejunostomy feeding protocol to include daily checks and explicit instructions on abdominal pain and other warning signs.

    Stated by University Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 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

Undertake an independent clinician Structured Judgement Review when mortality-screening triggers are identified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• If any triggers are identified, a Structured Judgement Review (SJR) is undertaken by an independent clinician.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 18 December 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

Screen all adult surgical-service deaths using a standardised Stage 1 mortality review tool.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since Mr Eustace’s death, improvements have been made to UHP’s learning from deaths and mortality review processes to strengthen the early identification of concerns in care that may have contributed to a patient’s death. These include:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 18 December 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 all coroner referrals through the Divisional Quality Team to identify concerns in care at an early stage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since Mr Eustace’s death, improvements have been made to UHP’s learning from deaths and mortality review processes to strengthen the early identification of concerns in care that may have contributed to a patient’s death. These include:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 18 December 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

Standardise the Gastro-Oesophagectomy pathway and stop using feeding jejunostomies post-operatively for this patient group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following Mr Eustace’s death, the jejunostomy feeding protocol (Appendix 1) was revised in September 2022. It now includes a daily checklist with explicit instructions regarding abdominal pain and other clinical warning signs. In addition, the pathway for all Gastro-Oesophagectomy patients at UHP has since been standardised and feeding jejunostomies are no longer used post-operatively. That change has removed the risk of feeding jejunostomy syndrome entirely for this patient group.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 December 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

Revise the jejunostomy feeding protocol to include daily checks and explicit instructions on abdominal pain and other warning signs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The investigation identified that at the time of Mr Eustace’s death there was variation in post-operative pathways for patients undergoing a Gastro-Oesophagectomy between the Thoracic and Oesophagogastric teams, including differing approaches to jejunostomy feeding. Although jejunostomy feeding post-surgery had been used for many years within the Thoracic Service Line, feeding jejunostomy syndrome had not previously been encountered and was not widely recognised by staff as a potential complication. The protocol in place did prompt staff to consider abdominal pain. However, it did not clearly explain the clinical significance of this finding, how to distinguish expected postoperative discomfort from red-flag symptoms, or the actions required if abdominal pain or other concerning symptoms were identified.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 December 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