PFD report

Karl Fraser DUNSTAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Jun 2025•Milton Keynes

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
5

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. Failure to investigate suspected pulmonary embolism in accordance with NICE guidance
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recognition and management of pulmonary embolism
  2. Failure to complete D-dimer testing during pulmonary embolism investigation
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely clinically required blood testsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable completion and tracking of requested clinical 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.3

  1. Action

    Undertake an audit of pulmonary embolism pick-up rates against recorded Wells scores and D-dimer use, including appropriateness of scoring-system application.

    Stated by Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 July 2025.
  2. Action

    Held cross-departmental discussions to review and optimise pulmonary embolism screening and triage systems across patient groups.

    Stated by Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 July 2025.
  3. Action

    Trial and evaluate for six months a process escalating unapproved CTPA requests to the duty radiologist, with requester contact when further information or investigation is needed.

    Stated by Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 July 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The Trust considers its current CTPA screening approach broadly appropriate and balanced against investigation risks.

    Stated by Milton Keynes University Hospital 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 to investigate suspected pulmonary embolism in accordance with NICE guidance

Wider context from the report

“That the investigation of a pulmonary embolism was not carried out in accordance with NICE guidance, and a request for a CT pulmonary angiogram by the consultant was rejected by the radiology department because it did not meet the threshold of the Wells score used by the Hospital and yet a D-dimer test was not completed, that if positive, would have resulted in a CTPA. The policy and procedure is in need of an urgent review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recognition and management of pulmonary embolism.

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 complete D-dimer testing during pulmonary embolism investigation

Wider context from the report

“That the investigation of a pulmonary embolism was not carried out in accordance with NICE guidance, and a request for a CT pulmonary angiogram by the consultant was rejected by the radiology department because it did not meet the threshold of the Wells score used by the Hospital and yet a D-dimer test was not completed, that if positive, would have resulted in a CTPA. The policy and procedure is in need of an urgent review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely clinically required blood tests; Unreliable completion and tracking of requested clinical 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

Undertake an audit of pulmonary embolism pick-up rates against recorded Wells scores and D-dimer use, including appropriateness of scoring-system application.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We do plan to undertake an audit to look at pick up rates (of pulmonary embolus) versus the Wells score and D-dimer. Clearly it is important to understand whether the request and scoring systems are being used appropriately. Specifically:”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes University Hospital
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 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

Held cross-departmental discussions to review and optimise pulmonary embolism screening and triage systems across patient groups.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of this case, we have:”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes University Hospital
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 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

Trial and evaluate for six months a process escalating unapproved CTPA requests to the duty radiologist, with requester contact when further information or investigation is needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We plan to trial a system for six months (and evaluate) whereby if a CTPA cannot be approved by the radiographer, it will be brought to the attention of the duty radiologist. If the radiologist is satisfied (from the request narrative) that a D-dimer is not required, he/she may authorise the study. If the radiologist is not satisfied, efforts will be made by the radiographer to contact the requester by bleep / telephone to inform them of this and to invite them to undertake a D-dimer or to discuss further investigation with the duty radiologist as appropriate (in addition to the current system of the primary communication being electronic).”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes University Hospital
Page 5 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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 Trust considers its current CTPA screening approach broadly appropriate and balanced against investigation risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We consider that our current approach is consistent with other NHS organisations and broadly strikes the right balance between the advantage and risks of CT pulmonary angiography.”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes University Hospital
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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 Trust considers management reasonable and says earlier D-dimer or CTPA would not probably have changed the outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I shall come on to address the substantive content of the regulation 28 report, but I do find it necessary to comment on the text of your narrative conclusion before doing so. Specifically, you assert that a failure to undertake a D-dimer test and therefore to obtain an urgent CT pulmonary angiogram (to make a definitive diagnosis of a pulmonary embolus) meant that thrombolysis was not started when he later collapsed (in cardiorespiratory arrest). You imply that thrombolysis would perhaps have altered the sad outcome in describing ‘missed opportunities [which] more than minimally contributed to his death’. For avoidance of doubt, we consider that whilst a different course of events and actions might potentially have influenced the ultimate outcome, it would not – on the balance of probabilities – have done so.”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes University Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 14 July 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.2

  1. 1

    Liaised with neighbouring Trusts to understand their approaches to pulmonary embolism screening and triage.

    Stated by Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 July 2025.
  2. 2

    Discussed the case at the Trust Grand Round to obtain alternative views and perspectives.

    Stated by Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 July 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

Liaised with neighbouring Trusts to understand their approaches to pulmonary embolism screening and triage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of this case, we have:”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes University Hospital
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 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

Discussed the case at the Trust Grand Round to obtain alternative views and perspectives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of this case, we have:”

Source location

Response from Milton Keynes University Hospital
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 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