PFD report

Amelia Celestine Calvo · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Mar 2016•Manchester City

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 hand over known or suspected difficult airway information to paediatric anaesthetists
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processes
  2. Lack of a nationally agreed neonatal airway assessment classification
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

    Implement and roll out a clinically revised Team Brief, including an Introductions Board, staff-presence checks, and reordered clinical discussion prompts.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 March 2016.

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 hand over known or suspected difficult airway information to paediatric anaesthetists

Wider context from the report

“1. During the course of the inquest, I heard evidence from ████████ Consultant Neonatologist, the independent expert instructed by the court that the grading system used by anaesthetists to assess a patient's throat prior to carrying out a laryngoscopy and assessment generally, namely the view being classified as follows: o Grade I: Complete glottis visible o Grade II: Anterior glottis not seen o Grade III: Epiglottis seen, but not glottis o Grade IV: Epiglottis not seen is not a classification that is generally used in neonatal practice. ████████ advised that in fact this classification was ‘rarely’ used in neonatal practice and that there were discussions currently being undertaken as to creating a joint anaesthetic/neonatal guideline. In Amelia’s case, the issue was as to whether or not there was a ‘difficult/dangerous’ airway was not handed over by the neonatologists to the paediatric anaesthetist prior to the surgery on 28 March 2014 as the neonatologists did not consider 4 attempts at intubation at birth to be indicative of a difficult airway. ████████ additionally stated that in his Trust discussions were taking place in the neonatology department with regard to using this classification system, but there is no national guideline to this effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical handover 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

Lack of a nationally agreed neonatal airway assessment classification

Wider context from the report

“1. During the course of the inquest, I heard evidence from ████████ Consultant Neonatologist, the independent expert instructed by the court that the grading system used by anaesthetists to assess a patient's throat prior to carrying out a laryngoscopy and assessment generally, namely the view being classified as follows: o Grade I: Complete glottis visible o Grade II: Anterior glottis not seen o Grade III: Epiglottis seen, but not glottis o Grade IV: Epiglottis not seen is not a classification that is generally used in neonatal practice. ████████ advised that in fact this classification was ‘rarely’ used in neonatal practice and that there were discussions currently being undertaken as to creating a joint anaesthetic/neonatal guideline. In Amelia’s case, the issue was as to whether or not there was a ‘difficult/dangerous’ airway was not handed over by the neonatologists to the paediatric anaesthetist prior to the surgery on 28 March 2014 as the neonatologists did not consider 4 attempts at intubation at birth to be indicative of a difficult airway. ████████ additionally stated that in his Trust discussions were taking place in the neonatology department with regard to using this classification system, but there is no national guideline to this effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Implement and roll out a clinically revised Team Brief, including an Introductions Board, staff-presence checks, and reordered clinical discussion prompts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Work has been undertaken in RMCH to ensure clinical engagement with the Team Brief:”

Source location

2016-0192-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 11 March 2016

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.3

  1. 1

    Provide summary notes for Mortality and Morbidity discussions, recording responses, recommendations, action plans, or outcomes.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 March 2016.
  2. 2

    Discuss Paediatric Anaesthetic Mortality and Morbidity cases within Trust-wide Audit and Clinical Effectiveness Days from January 2017.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 March 2016.
  3. 3

    Review each Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital Mortality Group case through an uninvolved Consultant and circulate meeting minutes to relevant clinicians.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 March 2016.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Mortality and morbidity discussions need not occur in a separate departmental meeting because Trust-wide ACE Days are considered an appropriate forum.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Provide summary notes for Mortality and Morbidity discussions, recording responses, recommendations, action plans, or outcomes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From January 2017, the Paediatric Anaesthetic Department’s discussion of Mortality and Morbidity will take place as part of the agenda within the Trust wide Audit and Clinical Effectiveness (ACE) Days. These dates are planned in advance, and attendance is supported by the cancellation of elective activity. ████████, Clinical Lead – Theatres and Anaesthesia, has confirmed that when mortality and morbidity cases are discussed, summary notes will be provided to capture responses, recommendations, action plans or outcomes.”

Source location

2016-0192-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2016

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

Discuss Paediatric Anaesthetic Mortality and Morbidity cases within Trust-wide Audit and Clinical Effectiveness Days from January 2017.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Evidence that Mortality and Morbidity team meetings in the Paediatric Anaesthetic Department were not minuted. It is understood that those meetings are now minuted and the minutes circulated to clinicians. Request for confirmation of this”

Source location

2016-0192-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2016

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 each Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital Mortality Group case through an uninvolved Consultant and circulate meeting minutes to relevant clinicians.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Anaesthetic deaths are rare, and the ACE day is considered an appropriate forum for a departmental discussion of mortality and morbidity. It is important to highlight that in addition, Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital has a well-established Mortality Group whereby the final episode of care is reviewed by a Consultant who was not involved in the patient’s care. These meetings are minuted and the minutes are circulated (to reviewing members and Consultant medical staff identified as involved during the patient’s final episode of care at RMCH).”

Source location

2016-0192-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 March 2016

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

Mortality and morbidity discussions need not occur in a separate departmental meeting because Trust-wide ACE Days are considered an appropriate forum.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From January 2017, the Paediatric Anaesthetic Department’s discussion of Mortality and Morbidity will take place as part of the agenda within the Trust wide Audit and Clinical Effectiveness (ACE) Days. These dates are planned in advance, and attendance is supported by the cancellation of elective activity. ████████, Clinical Lead – Theatres and Anaesthesia, has confirmed that when mortality and morbidity cases are discussed, summary notes will be provided to capture responses, recommendations, action plans or outcomes.”

Source location

2016-0192-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2016

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