PFD report

Thomas Joseph GERAGHTY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Jun 2024•East Sussex

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
11

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 raised1

  1. Failure to review medication continuity when deregistering patients
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain uninterrupted access to clinically necessary medication
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.9

  1. Action

    Update the Repeat Prescribing Policy to require adequate medication supply for removed patients until they register elsewhere.

    Stated by Chelsfield SurgeryStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2024.
  2. Action

    Provide removed patients with a final-prescription letter explaining the need to register elsewhere for medication continuity.

    Stated by Chelsfield SurgeryStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 July 2024.
  3. Action

    Continue prescribing for removed patients with safeguarding concerns until registration elsewhere is confirmed, with any stopping decision made by a senior clinician and documented.

    Stated by Chelsfield SurgeryStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 July 2024.

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 review medication continuity when deregistering patients

Wider context from the report

“I have a concern that individuals can be removed from the surgery as patients without any scrutiny as to whether the individual may be receiving vital medication (either for a mental health or physical health issue). There does not appear to be any process of review in relation to these patients to ensure that they will continue to receive their medication after they are deregistered from the surgery. This is of particular concern where a patient is deregistered and the surgery has not been provided with details of an individual's new GP. There is a concern that in these circumstances, an individual may be left without access to medication, which could cause or contribute to their death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain uninterrupted access to clinically necessary medication.

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 Repeat Prescribing Policy to require adequate medication supply for removed patients until they register elsewhere.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. We have also reviewed and updated our Repeat Prescribing Policy. Our Policy now states:”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 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

Provide removed patients with a final-prescription letter explaining the need to register elsewhere for medication continuity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(b) We will now write to the patient to explain that this will be the final prescription from the practice and that the patient needs to register elsewhere to ensure continuity of their medication. In circumstances where there are safeguarding concerns, we will continue to prescribe medication until we receive confirmation that the patient has registered with a GP elsewhere. Any decision to then stop prescribing must usually be made by the safeguarding lead, or if they are unavailable then a senior clinician, and be clearly documented.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 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

Continue prescribing for removed patients with safeguarding concerns until registration elsewhere is confirmed, with any stopping decision made by a senior clinician and documented.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(b) We will now write to the patient to explain that this will be the final prescription from the practice and that the patient needs to register elsewhere to ensure continuity of their medication. In circumstances where there are safeguarding concerns, we will continue to prescribe medication until we receive confirmation that the patient has registered with a GP elsewhere. Any decision to then stop prescribing must usually be made by the safeguarding lead, or if they are unavailable then a senior clinician, and be clearly documented.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 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

Audit deductions from the previous three years to identify affected patients and additional learning points.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. The Practice Manager is conducting an audit of all deductions which have taken place in the last 3 years. Through this audit we hope to ensure that no other patients have been affected by a deduction and to check if there are any additional learning points which arise.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 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

Circulate updated policies and SEA learning points to all non-clinical staff by email.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The updated policies and learning points arising from the SEA have been circulated by email to all non-clinical staff. A practice meeting is scheduled on 14 August 2024 for all non-clinical staff to attend. The conclusions of the SEA will be disseminated to ensure that all staff learn from this case. We will highlight the updated policies and changes to procedure to ensure that there is no risk of repetition when deducting patients in the future.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 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

Hold a Significant Event Analysis meeting to examine the deduction and agree learning points.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. On 25 July 2024 the practice held a Significant Event Analysis (“SEA”) meeting. The details of Patient TG’s deduction from the list were presented and learning outcomes discussed. These included: a clinician should have been consulted before the deduction was submitted in November 2022, safeguarding considerations ought to have been raised and discussed with safeguarding lead, Patient TG ought to have been sent a further letter informing him of the deduction and Patient TG ought to have received advice about continuing his medication supply.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 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

Conduct monthly audits of future deductions and feed findings into weekly safeguarding meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. A continuing monthly audit will be undertaken by the Practice Manager for all patients deducted in the future. This audit will ensure that all deductions are appropriate, that any safeguarding concerns have been addressed and that the deduction does not disrupt continuity of care. The results of this audit will be fed into the safeguarding meetings which take place weekly (see below).”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 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

Hold a practice meeting for non-clinical staff to disseminate SEA conclusions and explain updated deduction procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The updated policies and learning points arising from the SEA have been circulated by email to all non-clinical staff. A practice meeting is scheduled on 14 August 2024 for all non-clinical staff to attend. The conclusions of the SEA will be disseminated to ensure that all staff learn from this case. We will highlight the updated policies and changes to procedure to ensure that there is no risk of repetition when deducting patients in the future.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 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 deductions involving safeguarding concerns in weekly safeguarding meetings and check that clinical needs and medication access are met.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. The Safeguarding Lead GP will now review any patient deductions where there are safeguarding concerns in the weekly safeguarding meeting. These patients will be discussed and checks made to ensure that clinical needs are being met, particularly with respect to prescriptions / access to vital medication.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 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.2

  1. 1

    Review each deduction promptly through the administration team to check safeguarding discussions and appropriate follow-up.

    Stated by Chelsfield SurgeryStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 July 2024.
  2. 2

    Require Safeguarding Lead consultation before removing any patient and require written notification after deduction.

    Stated by Chelsfield SurgeryStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2024.

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

  1. 1

    The reported deregistration date was inaccurate; the deduction took effect on 29 December 2022, not 16 January 2023.

    Stated by Chelsfield SurgeryDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 deduction promptly through the administration team to check safeguarding discussions and appropriate follow-up.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(c) Any deduction that takes place will now be reviewed by the administration team in the immediate period after the deduction. This is a safety net process to ensure that any safeguarding concerns have been discussed and appropriate action taken.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 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

Require Safeguarding Lead consultation before removing any patient and require written notification after deduction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. As a practice we have considered, reviewed and updated our Removal of Patients Policy. Before any removal can take place it is now a mandatory requirement for the Safeguarding Lead to be consulted to ensure that all safeguarding concerns have been appropriately addressed. It is also now a mandatory requirement for a patient to receive a written notification when a deduction has taken place.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 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 reported deregistration date was inaccurate; the deduction took effect on 29 December 2022, not 16 January 2023.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst writing, may we correct one matter noted on the Regulation 28 report. It is stated that Patient TG was deregistered as a patient by the surgery on 16 January 2023, which is inaccurate. The records indicate that the deduction request was submitted by the Practice on 28 November 2022 and completed on 29 December 2022. PCSE requested a copy of Patient TG’s medical records on 29 December 2022 and these were then sent on 16 January 2023. The member of the administrative team who dealt with transferring the records also made an entry into the medical consultations page to state that Patient TG had been deducted. This entry is dated 16 January 2023 – but the deduction had already taken effect from 29 December 2022.”

Source location

Response from Chelsfield Surgery
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026