PFD report

Kasey Beech · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Aug 2024•Inner South London

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 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 raised2

  1. Streaming patients without current chest pain to a MedOCC or equivalent service despite risk of sudden deterioration
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency-department streaming and initial assessment
  2. Failure to assess potentially life-threatening non-cardiac causes alongside cardiac causes of pain
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to consider or reconsider serious alternative diagnoses
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.8

  1. Action

    Continue working with NHS England to promote standardised initial assessment for emergency-department patients.

    Stated by Royal College of Emergency MedicineStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 September 2024.
  2. Action

    Issue guidance on emergency-department initial assessment and triage.

    Stated by Royal College of Emergency MedicineStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2024.
  3. Action

    Collaborate with NHS England to standardise initial-assessment definitions and processes.

    Stated by Royal College of Emergency MedicineStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    Insufficient information about the UTC’s role and STREAMing Model prevents a specific response to concerns about prioritising chest pain.

    Stated by Royal College of Emergency MedicineUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Streaming patients without current chest pain to a MedOCC or equivalent service despite risk of sudden deterioration

Wider context from the report

“The focus of the current STREAMing guidance regarding the assessment of new non-injury ambulatory patients able to speak in complete sentences without becoming out of breath is on chest pain. The assessment relates to current chest pain and diagnostic investigations are in turn centred on whether there is a cardiac cause. Such patients who do not present with current chest pain are sent to the MedOCC. However: (i) pain can fluctuate over time and may not always be concurrent with the initial assessment; (ii) pain may be masked by analgesia taken prior to assessment; and (iii) the focus on a cardiac cause itself risks diverting a clinician from the wider question of identifying the cause of the pain. The consideration of differentials that may be immediately life-threatening, or place the patient at risk of a sudden deterioration (e.g. infective exacerbation of asthma) may be delayed, or not given adequate attention as a consequence. While it is understood that a cardiac issue is high risk and requires prompt diagnosis, and that the exclusion of a cardiac cause causing current chest pain is also diagnostically helpful, I am concerned that the prioritisation of current cardiac-sounding chest-pain and the streaming to a MedOCC/equivalent service may be to the detriment of other patients who are nonetheless at risk of sudden deterioration and therefore creates a risk of future deaths (in both cardiac and non-cardiac patients). It is understood that the current national guidelines are under review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency-department streaming and initial assessment.

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 assess potentially life-threatening non-cardiac causes alongside cardiac causes of pain

Wider context from the report

“The focus of the current STREAMing guidance regarding the assessment of new non-injury ambulatory patients able to speak in complete sentences without becoming out of breath is on chest pain. The assessment relates to current chest pain and diagnostic investigations are in turn centred on whether there is a cardiac cause. Such patients who do not present with current chest pain are sent to the MedOCC. However: (i) pain can fluctuate over time and may not always be concurrent with the initial assessment; (ii) pain may be masked by analgesia taken prior to assessment; and (iii) the focus on a cardiac cause itself risks diverting a clinician from the wider question of identifying the cause of the pain. The consideration of differentials that may be immediately life-threatening, or place the patient at risk of a sudden deterioration (e.g. infective exacerbation of asthma) may be delayed, or not given adequate attention as a consequence. While it is understood that a cardiac issue is high risk and requires prompt diagnosis, and that the exclusion of a cardiac cause causing current chest pain is also diagnostically helpful, I am concerned that the prioritisation of current cardiac-sounding chest-pain and the streaming to a MedOCC/equivalent service may be to the detriment of other patients who are nonetheless at risk of sudden deterioration and therefore creates a risk of future deaths (in both cardiac and non-cardiac patients). It is understood that the current national guidelines are under review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to consider or reconsider serious alternative diagnoses.

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

Continue working with NHS England to promote standardised initial assessment for emergency-department patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCEM has collaborated with NHS England to standardise the definition and processes that might be used in the initial assessment of a patient attending the emergency department [2]. The RCEM continues to work with NHS England to promote the standardisation of initial assessment of patients presenting to emergency departments. Our current work has involved”

Source location

Response from RCEM
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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

Issue guidance on emergency-department initial assessment and triage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) has issued the following guidance regarding the initial assessment (triage) of patients [1]”

Source location

Response from RCEM
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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

Collaborate with NHS England to standardise initial-assessment definitions and processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCEM has collaborated with NHS England to standardise the definition and processes that might be used in the initial assessment of a patient attending the emergency department [2]. The RCEM continues to work with NHS England to promote the standardisation of initial assessment of patients presenting to emergency departments. Our current work has involved”

Source location

Response from RCEM
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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 the effectiveness of current triage systems using evidence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCEM has collaborated with NHS England to standardise the definition and processes that might be used in the initial assessment of a patient attending the emergency department [2]. The RCEM continues to work with NHS England to promote the standardisation of initial assessment of patients presenting to emergency departments. Our current work has involved”

Source location

Response from RCEM
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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

Help design a new initial-assessment process for implementation across emergency departments in England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCEM has collaborated with NHS England to standardise the definition and processes that might be used in the initial assessment of a patient attending the emergency department [2]. The RCEM continues to work with NHS England to promote the standardisation of initial assessment of patients presenting to emergency departments. Our current work has involved”

Source location

Response from RCEM
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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 the new initial assessment model at sites across England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England is currently developing a new initial assessment model in collaboration with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM), the RCN, the FEN, the Emergency Nurse Consultant Group, and lay (patient) representation. This new model has been successfully introduced in more than 20 sites across England and is specifically focused on improving patient safety. This new model has been successful in bringing down the time to initial assessment to below 15 minutes in sites where it has been implemented.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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 a new initial assessment model collaboratively with emergency care, nursing and patient representatives to improve patient safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England is currently developing a new initial assessment model in collaboration with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM), the RCN, the FEN, the Emergency Nurse Consultant Group, and lay (patient) representation. This new model has been successfully introduced in more than 20 sites across England and is specifically focused on improving patient safety. This new model has been successful in bringing down the time to initial assessment to below 15 minutes in sites where it has been implemented.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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

Update the guideline on asthma diagnosis, monitoring and chronic asthma management for publication.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although not directly mentioned in your report, you may be interested to learn that we are updating our guideline on Asthma: diagnosis, monitoring and chronic asthma management and this update is expected to publish on the 27 November.”

Source location

Response from NICE
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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

Insufficient information about the UTC’s role and STREAMing Model prevents a specific response to concerns about prioritising chest pain.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We note the initial assessment took place in an Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) rather than Emergency Department (ED); from the described circumstances of Ms Beech’s death, it is not clear whether the UTC was effectively ‘gatekeeping’ access to an emergency department or not. Regarding the Simple Triage Rapid Emergency Assessment Method ‘STREAMing Model’ª, we have not been able to find any specific details regarding what appears to be an initial assessment tool, and we do not believe that this is an assessment tool that is routinely used in emergency departments. As a consequence, we are not able to provide any specific response to your concerns regarding the apparent prioritisation of cardiac sounding chest pain over other potentially life-threatening conditions.”

Source location

Response from RCEM
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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

Modifying the STREAMing pathway would probably not have predicted the rapid deterioration or altered the initial assessment outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In this case, Kasey deteriorated rapidly after leaving the MedOCC. It does not appear that modification of the STREAMing pathway would have been likely to have predicted that or altered the outcome of the initial assessment.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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 STREAMing pathway does not unduly prioritise cardiac-sounding chest pain, and directing this patient to MedOCC was appropriate after low-risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following their review, I am advised by the National Clinical Director that the STREAMing pathway in use by Medway Maritime Hospital does not have an undue prioritisation of chest pain (particularly cardiac-sounding chest pain). As indicated above, the general condition of the patient, any signs of breathlessness, their ability to talk in sentences and their ability to walk unaided are all assessed. In this tragic case, the initial assessments all pointed towards a low-risk situation for which direction to the MedOCC was appropriate. A low risk initial assessment does not completely rule out the possibility of future deterioration but usually indicates the lack of a need for immediate treatment.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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

NHS England is responsible for addressing concerns about its STREAMing prioritisation system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Given that the matters of concern relate to the prioritisation system (STREAMing) which was produced by NHS England, these are not areas that are within NICE’s remit. We believe that the issues raised are best addressed by NHS England, and note that you have also sent your report to them for response.”

Source location

Response from NICE
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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 prioritisation system and acute-care organisation concerns fall outside NICE’s remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Given that the matters of concern relate to the prioritisation system (STREAMing) which was produced by NHS England, these are not areas that are within NICE’s remit. We believe that the issues raised are best addressed by NHS England, and note that you have also sent your report to them for response.”

Source location

Response from NICE
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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.1

  1. 1

    Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share their learning nationally and regionally.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2024.

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

Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share their learning nationally and regionally.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2024

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026