PFD report

Jacqueline Frances O'BRIEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Jun 2026•Worcestershire

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
4

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 raised2

  1. Failure to follow up family concerns about a patient's condition
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to acknowledge and act on family and carer safety concerns in patient care
  2. Failure to carry out checks or observations on a deteriorating patient
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deteriorationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
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

    Update the discharge lounge SOP on patient capacity, deteriorating-patient management, and exclusion criteria for unsuitable patients.

    Stated by Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 September 2026.
  2. Action

    Implement Martha’s Rule across the Trust as an alternative escalation pathway for patients, relatives, and staff concerned about a patient’s condition.

    Stated by Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 September 2026.
  3. Action

    Complete the commissioned case review to identify system improvements and examine its findings for wider learning.

    Stated by Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 3 September 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The patient was in the discharge lounge before transfer, not the PDU.

    Stated by Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 follow up family concerns about a patient's condition

Wider context from the report

“It was agreed by the consultant who gave evidence at the inquest, and by the Trust's legal representative, that thereafter between 1230hrs and Mrs. O'Brien's departure for Pershore at 2025hrs that evening, there is no evidence of any further checks or observations being carried out. In fact, when Mrs. O'Brien was seen on the PDU by family members that same afternoon, it was clear to them that she was in a great deal of pain and distress. They raised their concerns with staff on the PDU, who assured them that she was alright. No member of staff appears to have acted on those concerns, and ensured that Mrs. O'Brien was checked. Those who transported Mrs. O'Brien to Pershore reported to staff there that she "had been in pain on transfer". On her arrival at Pershore at 2100hrs, it was clear to staff there and to an out of hours GP who was called to examine her, that she was in severe pain and very unwell, with a National Early Warning Score ( NEWS ) of 5. An ambulance was called to transfer her back to Worcester, and the paramedics recorded at 0111hrs that her NEWS score had risen to 10. I am therefore concerned at how staff on the PDU at Worcestershire Royal Hospital failed: (a) for some 8 hours to carry out any checks or observations on a patient who was clearly becoming very unwell; and (b) to follow up concerns raised by Mrs. O'Brien's family about her condition on the afternoon/evening of her discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to acknowledge and act on family and carer safety concerns in patient care.

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 carry out checks or observations on a deteriorating patient

Wider context from the report

“It was agreed by the consultant who gave evidence at the inquest, and by the Trust's legal representative, that thereafter between 1230hrs and Mrs. O'Brien's departure for Pershore at 2025hrs that evening, there is no evidence of any further checks or observations being carried out. In fact, when Mrs. O'Brien was seen on the PDU by family members that same afternoon, it was clear to them that she was in a great deal of pain and distress. They raised their concerns with staff on the PDU, who assured them that she was alright. No member of staff appears to have acted on those concerns, and ensured that Mrs. O'Brien was checked. Those who transported Mrs. O'Brien to Pershore reported to staff there that she "had been in pain on transfer". On her arrival at Pershore at 2100hrs, it was clear to staff there and to an out of hours GP who was called to examine her, that she was in severe pain and very unwell, with a National Early Warning Score ( NEWS ) of 5. An ambulance was called to transfer her back to Worcester, and the paramedics recorded at 0111hrs that her NEWS score had risen to 10. I am therefore concerned at how staff on the PDU at Worcestershire Royal Hospital failed: (a) for some 8 hours to carry out any checks or observations on a patient who was clearly becoming very unwell; and (b) to follow up concerns raised by Mrs. O'Brien's family about her condition on the afternoon/evening of her discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deterioration; Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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

Update the discharge lounge SOP on patient capacity, deteriorating-patient management, and exclusion criteria for unsuitable patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We have identified and confirm that there were no documented observations in the discharge lounge, although the staff recall taking them but only on recording these on paper and not in the electronic patient record. We have reviewed the discharge lounge SOP as it lacked clarity around what we expect our staff and how often observations should be recorded whilst patients are in the discharge lounge.”

Source location

Response from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 3 September 2026

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

Implement Martha’s Rule across the Trust as an alternative escalation pathway for patients, relatives, and staff concerned about a patient’s condition.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We can confirm there was no documentation of the family concerns in the patient's notes. Since the time of the case, Martha's Rule has been implemented across the trust, providing an alternative escalation pathway for both families and staff if there are concerns about a patient's condition, while it may not have been used in this specific case, it is now available to all patients, relatives and staff.”

Source location

Response from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 3 September 2026

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

Complete the commissioned case review to identify system improvements and examine its findings for wider learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An initial review has been undertaken and discussed in our Patient Safety incident Review Group (PSiRG) on 6th July 2026 and we have commissioned a case review to explore in more detail the events that day and what systems could be improved to aid our staff to care for patients safely and ensure records are accurate in a future scenario similar to this.”

Source location

Response from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 3 September 2026

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

Require the discharge lounge team to record full observations electronically and use SBAR escalation for deterioration or medical emergencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• in the event of a deterioration or medical emergency the patients consultant team will be contacted and arrangements made for the patient to be reviewed”

Source location

Response from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 3 September 2026

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 patient was in the discharge lounge before transfer, not the PDU.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to your specific concern listed above we would like firstly to clarify that Mrs O’Brien was on the discharge lounge prior to transfer to Pershore, we apologise for any misunderstanding that led you to believe it was PDU. Please find below the actions the trust have taken in relation to your concerns on her care before discharge:”

Source location

Response from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 3 September 2026

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