PFD report

Sylvia Scully · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Aug 2020•Manchester South

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
9

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. Failure of routine clinical governance processes to initiate formal Serious Untoward Incident investigations or similar investigations
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes
  2. Failure to use a Rapid Assessment and Treatment Model for walk-in Emergency Department patients
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable rapid assessment and treatment for walk-in Emergency Department patients
  3. Limited remote access to relevant systems for urgent out-of-hours imaging reporting
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable radiology processes for communicating findings and initiating required follow-upPart of recurring concern: Unreliable timeliness of radiology imaging and reporting
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.3

  1. Action

    Have senior clinicians undertake Case Review and Lessons Learned reviews for relevant patient-safety concerns.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 October 2020.
  2. Action

    Allocate a Lead Consultant to ensure priority 1 and 2 Emergency Department patients receive timely senior assessment and prompt investigations.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 October 2020.
  3. Action

    Revisit radiology informatics guidance to verify that imaging equipment specifications are clear and unambiguous.

    Stated by Royal College of RadiologistsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 October 2020.

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

  1. Position

    Existing incident investigation processes and review were considered sufficient, so a formal serious untoward incident investigation was not undertaken.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care 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

Failure of routine clinical governance processes to initiate formal Serious Untoward Incident investigations or similar investigations

Wider context from the report

“1. Notwithstanding the circumstances of Mrs Scully’s death, the Trust’s routine clinical governance processes have not resulted in a formal Serious Untoward Incident investigation or similar taking place in respect of the care and treatment provided to her. This is a matter of concern given the great importance to patient safety of robust and effective investigations being undertaken in a timely fashion; ”

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

Failure to use a Rapid Assessment and Treatment Model for walk-in Emergency Department patients

Wider context from the report

“2. A Rapid Assessment and Treatment Model was not in use at the Trust’s Emergency Department at the time of Mrs Scully’s attendance in respect of ‘walk-in’ patients. Such a paradigm would have seen Mrs Scully assessed early on by a senior doctor who had the experience and authority to promptly initiate all relevant investigations (including ordering CT Scans) and commence treatment, in advance of review by the surgical team. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable rapid assessment and treatment for walk-in Emergency Department patients.

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

Limited remote access to relevant systems for urgent out-of-hours imaging reporting

Wider context from the report

“1. The court heard evidence that the Consultant Radiologist on-call for the Trust and reporting on urgent out-of-hours imaging from home, had more limited remote access to relevant systems than radiologists working for remote reporting companies and had been provided with less equipment than such an individual. Given the importance of effective out-of-hours reporting of imaging to emergency care, it is considered authoritative guidelines as to requisite access and recommended equipment could assist in reducing such variations. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable radiology processes for communicating findings and initiating required follow-up; Unreliable timeliness of radiology imaging and reporting.

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

Insufficient equipment for urgent out-of-hours imaging reporting from home

Wider context from the report

“1. The court heard evidence that the Consultant Radiologist on-call for the Trust and reporting on urgent out-of-hours imaging from home, had more limited remote access to relevant systems than radiologists working for remote reporting companies and had been provided with less equipment than such an individual. Given the importance of effective out-of-hours reporting of imaging to emergency care, it is considered authoritative guidelines as to requisite access and recommended equipment could assist in reducing such variations. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable out-of-hours radiological reporting.

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

Have senior clinicians undertake Case Review and Lessons Learned reviews for relevant patient-safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is appreciated that this level of scrutiny is not always apparent and evident for the purpose of the Inquest therefore, the Trust’s Integrated Governance Team have considered how they can evidence different responses to patient safety incidents, including Multi-Disciplinary Team reviews, complaints investigations and expert opinions, which occur outside of a formal SUI process. A new ‘Case Review and Lessons Learned’ document has been produced which will be provided as part of the coronial disclosure process. Senior Clinicians with the expertise in the area of concern will undertake such case reviews. The findings and lessons learned document will be presented in a ‘Case Review and Lessons Learned’ report which the Trust intend on disclosing as part of the coronial process for the benefit of the family and Court if a serious incident investigation is not required.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Allocate a Lead Consultant to ensure priority 1 and 2 Emergency Department patients receive timely senior assessment and prompt investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“models and their applications and have continuously reviewed them along with staffing requirements in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Trust have adopted new ways of working to ensure patients who are categorised as a 1 or 2 are seen in a timely manner. Between Monday to Friday, 08.00 hours to 22.00 hours and on weekends between 10.00 hours to 18.00 hours, there is a “Lead Consultant” allocated to ensure these urgent patients are seen within 30 minutes following Triage. This is to ensure these patients are seen by the appropriate team and appropriate investigations are requested quickly. When a Triage Nurse has undertaken her initial assessment, it is then their responsibility to immediately highlight them to the Team Leader.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 5 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Revisit radiology informatics guidance to verify that imaging equipment specifications are clear and unambiguous.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Royal College of Radiologists already has comprehensive guidelines available to all services detailing the minimum system specifications needed to review and report imaging investigations both on and off site. I have enclosed two relevant sets of guidelines which will assist all services in ensuring that the appropriate standards for the provision of IT equipment are met. These guidelines are publically available on our website and communicated to all our members and Fellows upon publication. In light of the concerns you have raised we have invited our Radiology Informatics Committee to revisit its guidance to double check that it is clear and unambiguous in its specifications, which the Committee has agreed to do.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-Royal-College-of-Radiologists.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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 incident investigation processes and review were considered sufficient, so a formal serious untoward incident investigation was not undertaken.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to address your concerns, I would first like to take the opportunity to explain the Trust’s incident investigation process, which was effective at the time of Mrs Scully’s attendance. I hope by explaining this and various other types of investigations the Trust undertake, it will provide you with reassurance that whilst a Serious Untoward Incident was not undertaken in Mrs Scully’s case, her treatment and care was reviewed by the Trust.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Local clinical governance protocols are responsible for ensuring imaging reports use equipment meeting minimum clinical requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ultimately it is for local clinical governance protocols to ensure that radiologists and others involved in the reporting of imaging investigations, whether on or off site do so using equipment which meets minimum clinical requirements. Those minimum requirements are set out in publicly available guidelines available on our website.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-Royal-College-of-Radiologists.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Publicly available guidelines already set minimum equipment requirements for reviewing and reporting imaging investigations on and off site.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Royal College of Radiologists already has comprehensive guidelines available to all services detailing the minimum system specifications needed to review and report imaging investigations both on and off site. I have enclosed two relevant sets of guidelines which will assist all services in ensuring that the appropriate standards for the provision of IT equipment are met. These guidelines are publically available on our website and communicated to all our members and Fellows upon publication. In light of the concerns you have raised we have invited our Radiology Informatics Committee to revisit its guidance to double check that it is clear and unambiguous in its specifications, which the Committee has agreed to do.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-Royal-College-of-Radiologists.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Technology access issues are being addressed locally by Tameside General Hospital.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The specific circumstances which gave rise to the matters of concern you raised to us were unclear and as such we sought clarification from Tameside General Hospital. We understand they are locally addressing the technology access issues pertinent to the circumstances of Mrs Scully’s death.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-Royal-College-of-Radiologists.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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.6

  1. 1

    Create and disseminate an Emergency Department flowchart and blood-test catalogue for immediate testing of common presentations.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 October 2020.
  2. 2

    Produce a Case Review and Lessons Learned document for documenting non-SUI patient-safety reviews.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 October 2020.
  3. 3

    Operate specialist referral hubs for surgical, ENT, orthopaedic and gynaecological Emergency Department presentations.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 October 2020.
  4. 4

    Introduce two additional weekend Emergency Department Consultants after recruiting to the posts.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 October 2020.
  5. 5

    Disclose Case Review and Lessons Learned reports to the family and Court when a serious incident investigation is not required.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 October 2020.
  6. 6

    Develop and agree an Abdominal Pain Pathway to expedite indicated CT scans and surgical review within two hours of arrival.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 October 2020.

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

Create and disseminate an Emergency Department flowchart and blood-test catalogue for immediate testing of common presentations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust have also created a new flowchart and blood tests catalogue on Lorenzo (our patient information electronic information system) which advises our ED nursing staff of immediate blood tests required for the majority of the presenting complaints which include abdominal pain and chest pain. This will allow blood results to be processing and readily available when the medical assessment is being undertaken, allowing for swifter decisions to be made. This new flowchart has been shared with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) who have advised they would like to host this on the RCEM website for other Emergency Departments to utilise.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 5 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Produce a Case Review and Lessons Learned document for documenting non-SUI patient-safety reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is appreciated that this level of scrutiny is not always apparent and evident for the purpose of the Inquest therefore, the Trust’s Integrated Governance Team have considered how they can evidence different responses to patient safety incidents, including Multi-Disciplinary Team reviews, complaints investigations and expert opinions, which occur outside of a formal SUI process. A new ‘Case Review and Lessons Learned’ document has been produced which will be provided as part of the coronial disclosure process. Senior Clinicians with the expertise in the area of concern will undertake such case reviews. The findings and lessons learned document will be presented in a ‘Case Review and Lessons Learned’ report which the Trust intend on disclosing as part of the coronial process for the benefit of the family and Court if a serious incident investigation is not required.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Operate specialist referral hubs for surgical, ENT, orthopaedic and gynaecological Emergency Department presentations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These Consultants are expected to assess the triage records to identify any patients where specialist or Consultant input is required. There are specialist “hubs” on site which were introduced in March 2020, including surgical hubs where a patient could be directly referred to for input. As you will be aware, these specialist hubs would not have been in place at the time of Mrs Scully’s attendance. These were introduced to further reduce pressures and ensure safety in the Emergency Department and create a more efficient service, the Trust have developed an escalation process in which patients who present to the Emergency Department with certain presentations can be transferred to specialist hubs. These hubs include Surgical, Ear Nose & Throat (ENT), Orthopaedics and Gynaecology. These hubs are run by Consultants of the relevant discipline.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 5 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Introduce two additional weekend Emergency Department Consultants after recruiting to the posts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Furthermore we are in the process of introducing two Consultants to work within the Emergency Department at the weekend, and have recruited to these posts. Currently we have 1 on-call Consultant who are rostered to work in the department between the hours of 10.00 and 18.00, 8 middle grade doctors and 8 junior doctors. It is hoped that this extra resource of an additional Consultant will be implemented in time for the winter pressures we are anticipating to face this year, which as I am sure you can appreciate, will be much more profound this year considering the unprecedented times we face.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 5 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Disclose Case Review and Lessons Learned reports to the family and Court when a serious incident investigation is not required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is appreciated that this level of scrutiny is not always apparent and evident for the purpose of the Inquest therefore, the Trust’s Integrated Governance Team have considered how they can evidence different responses to patient safety incidents, including Multi-Disciplinary Team reviews, complaints investigations and expert opinions, which occur outside of a formal SUI process. A new ‘Case Review and Lessons Learned’ document has been produced which will be provided as part of the coronial disclosure process. Senior Clinicians with the expertise in the area of concern will undertake such case reviews. The findings and lessons learned document will be presented in a ‘Case Review and Lessons Learned’ report which the Trust intend on disclosing as part of the coronial process for the benefit of the family and Court if a serious incident investigation is not required.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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

Develop and agree an Abdominal Pain Pathway to expedite indicated CT scans and surgical review within two hours of arrival.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust are also in the process of developing an Abdominal Pain Pathway, which is hoping to achieve that within 2 hours of arrival, patients presenting to the Emergency Department with abdominal pain will have had a CT scan undertaken if their clinical presentation indicates that this is required. This is in the final stages of agreement as it involves the Emergency Department Teams, the Surgical Team and Radiology and is expected to be in place by the end of October 2020. It is believed that this pathway will reduce the waiting times patients experience who require CT scans due to abdominal pain and expedite the surgical review, resulting in a timelier plan of care being proposed.”

Source location

2020-0156-Response-from-NHS-Tameside-and-Glossop-Integrated-Care_Redacted.pdf
Page 5 · response
Published 21 October 2020

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026