PFD report

Elvon Paul Randolph Morton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 May 2024•East 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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
11

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 raised6

  1. Failure to make and evidence a reasoned decision on rapid tranquilisation
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable sedation guidance and practicePart of recurring concern: Unsafe rapid tranquillisation processes
  2. Failure to document key clinical decisions and treatment stages contemporaneously
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  3. Failure of legal assurance functions to identify absent investigation and remediation evidence
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.10

  1. Action

    Provide staff training on mental-capacity assessment and deprivation-of-liberty safeguards.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 May 2024.
  2. Action

    Give specialties early sight of inquests to support timely incident reporting, review, learning responses and submission of key documentation.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 May 2024.
  3. Action

    Recruit a learning-from-deaths lead to drive improvement and engage families, medical examiners and coroners.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 May 2024.

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

  1. Position

    The case was not classified as a serious incident because reviews concluded that care failures did not cause or alter the outcome.

    Stated by Barts Health 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 make and evidence a reasoned decision on rapid tranquilisation

Wider context from the report

“3. The decision to sedate Mr Morton was flawed. The lack of contemporary documentation impeded an effective coronary investigation and review of that clinical decision. In the absence of clear and reasoned evidence of decision making, weight must be attached to evidence heard that Elvon’s; size, sex and race triggered a heightened response by hospital staff to his agitation, leading to security officers being called. It was in this febrile atmosphere that the decision to utilise rapid tranquilisation, a simpler and faster process than anaesthesia and intubation, was made. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable sedation guidance and practice; Unsafe rapid tranquillisation 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

Failure to document key clinical decisions and treatment stages contemporaneously

Wider context from the report

“1. Documentation of key stages in Mr Morton’s care was poor or non-existent. Critical decisions on; mental capacity, best interests, the choice of sedation, the amount of drug administered, the method of administration and the timing of administration were not clearly recorded. In multi-clinician treatment contemporary documentation is essential to preserve patient safety. In this case the lack of clear documentation meant that some clinicians were unaware that Elvon was sedated, whilst others were ignorant of the fact that he had declined treatment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 of legal assurance functions to identify absent investigation and remediation evidence

Wider context from the report

“4. A failure in governance at the Trust meant that this case was not identified as a serious incident. This omission gives rise to a concern that future deaths may follow due to an inability on the part of the trust to identify, reflect upon, and remediate sub-optimal practice Elvon’s relative youth, the unexpected nature of his death, the poor standard of documentation, the effect of patient acuity on the ability of staff to comply with regulatory duties and the Trust’s acceptance (in Feb 2023) that intubation should have been undertaken earlier, should have resulted in this matter being properly reviewed. In this case the trust’s Datix incident reporting system, morbidity and mortality meeting process and SIRMAP procedure were inadequate. Each structure was siloed from the other, leading to inconsistent findings. Additionally, despite preparing for an inquest, neither the Trust’s legal team nor external lawyers seemed capable of identifying to the trust the absence of meaningful evidence of investigation, reflection and remediation of practice that was undoubtedly required in this case. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 escalate and mitigate workload pressure affecting patient safety

Wider context from the report

“2. Witnesses blamed poor documentation on workload, specifically an influx of acute patients into the resuscitation bays. Despite this, no evidence was presented that any attempt was made to mitigate this pressure by, escalating the matter to the site manager, nor did the on-call ED consultant find it necessary to come in to the unit. These actions tend towards a “coping culture” inconsistent with patient safety. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe operational pressure in emergency departments.

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 identify serious incidents and remediate sub-optimal practice

Wider context from the report

“4. A failure in governance at the Trust meant that this case was not identified as a serious incident. This omission gives rise to a concern that future deaths may follow due to an inability on the part of the trust to identify, reflect upon, and remediate sub-optimal practice Elvon’s relative youth, the unexpected nature of his death, the poor standard of documentation, the effect of patient acuity on the ability of staff to comply with regulatory duties and the Trust’s acceptance (in Feb 2023) that intubation should have been undertaken earlier, should have resulted in this matter being properly reviewed. In this case the trust’s Datix incident reporting system, morbidity and mortality meeting process and SIRMAP procedure were inadequate. Each structure was siloed from the other, leading to inconsistent findings. Additionally, despite preparing for an inquest, neither the Trust’s legal team nor external lawyers seemed capable of identifying to the trust the absence of meaningful evidence of investigation, reflection and remediation of practice that was undoubtedly required in this case. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable formal safety-incident management 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

Inadequacy and siloing of incident reporting and mortality review processes

Wider context from the report

“4. A failure in governance at the Trust meant that this case was not identified as a serious incident. This omission gives rise to a concern that future deaths may follow due to an inability on the part of the trust to identify, reflect upon, and remediate sub-optimal practice Elvon’s relative youth, the unexpected nature of his death, the poor standard of documentation, the effect of patient acuity on the ability of staff to comply with regulatory duties and the Trust’s acceptance (in Feb 2023) that intubation should have been undertaken earlier, should have resulted in this matter being properly reviewed. In this case the trust’s Datix incident reporting system, morbidity and mortality meeting process and SIRMAP procedure were inadequate. Each structure was siloed from the other, leading to inconsistent findings. Additionally, despite preparing for an inquest, neither the Trust’s legal team nor external lawyers seemed capable of identifying to the trust the absence of meaningful evidence of investigation, reflection and remediation of practice that was undoubtedly required in this case. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable morbidity and mortality review processes.

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

Provide staff training on mental-capacity assessment and deprivation-of-liberty safeguards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The speciality medicine team have a teaching programme and induction of all levels of staff on Internal Professional standards and appropriate contemporaneous documentation. Training will also be provided to all staff grades to ensure that they understand how to assess mental capacity and the application of deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 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

Give specialties early sight of inquests to support timely incident reporting, review, learning responses and submission of key documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“WXH have very carefully considered PFDs issued by the coroner in conjunction with late submissions and the impact this has on families, HM Coroner and ensuring preparedness for inquests. Steps have been taken to ensure that specialities have early sight of inquests. This will ensure that cases are reported via Datix, presented to PSIRM, learning responses and other key documentation are submitted in a timely manner (including statements). A proposal has been prepared to recruit a learning from deaths lead, their primary responsibility would be to drive improvement with stakeholder engagement including families, MEs, and coroners.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 4 · response
Published 14 May 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

Recruit a learning-from-deaths lead to drive improvement and engage families, medical examiners and coroners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“WXH have very carefully considered PFDs issued by the coroner in conjunction with late submissions and the impact this has on families, HM Coroner and ensuring preparedness for inquests. Steps have been taken to ensure that specialities have early sight of inquests. This will ensure that cases are reported via Datix, presented to PSIRM, learning responses and other key documentation are submitted in a timely manner (including statements). A proposal has been prepared to recruit a learning from deaths lead, their primary responsibility would be to drive improvement with stakeholder engagement including families, MEs, and coroners.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 4 · response
Published 14 May 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 ITU induction materials to require contemporaneous documentation or justified retrospective entries.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All doctors starting with ITU receive written pre-induction material to orientate them to the service. This is supplemented with face-to-face departmental induction. The induction material has been updated to state very clearly the need for contemporaneous documentation of clinical decision making wherever possible. Where not possible the documentation should reflect a retrospective entry with reasons why the entry had to be deferred.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 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

Implement the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework, including reporting, multidisciplinary review and proportionate learning responses for unexpected deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since November 2023, WXH have been in the process of implementing the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework. There is a very clear directive that unexpected deaths need to be reported via Datix and presented at Patient Safety Incident Review Meeting (PSIRM) so that an MDT decision can be made in terms of the correct learning response. In cases where care is thought to have led to the patient’s death a PSII will be undertaken (these investigations can take up to 6 months to complete). In other cases, an After-Action Review or SWARM should be undertaken, (where staff ‘swarm’ to review an incident) will be undertaken, these need to be completed within 12 weeks. In other cases, the PSIRM chair will request that the case be presented to M&M and the outcome reported back to PSIRM.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 4 · response
Published 14 May 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 rapid-tranquilisation guidance to require senior, clearly documented decision-making when its criteria cannot be followed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For assurance and complete clarity, the new rapid tranquilisation guidance which in the process of being recently updated is applicable to the whole of Barts Health has a very clear wording at the top “This guidance is not to be used in the hypoxic, hypovolemic or septic patient or in one in which intubation as opposed to rapid tranquilisation is required”. This will ensure decision making is senior and clearly documented if and when the guidance cannot be followed in cases where there is sound clinical justification to do so.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 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 emergency-department working patterns and consultant cover through a wider discussion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The clinical review group agree that a wider discussion needs to take place to review WXH A&E working patterns and consultant cover, these discussions are complex and will likely take place over the next 12 months in conjunction with other improvement work being undertaken to manage patient flow within the hospital. Risks in relation to ED pressures including overcrowding and resus capacity are reflected on the WXH risk register.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 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

Deliver an A&E induction programme covering mental capacity, contemporaneous documentation, emergency medicines, sedation and escalation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A specific induction programme has been formulated for the A&E which specifically covers themes such as the mental capacity act, contemporaneous documentation including emergency administered drugs with rationale, sedation and also escalation. The induction programme will be delivered and evidenced retained. A specific presentation relating to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) its implementation in practice and the wider considerations will be delivered within the teaching programmes for all grades within A&E.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 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

Arrange consultant attendance for specified emergency procedures in line with professional guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust are supportive of staff that are increasingly managing high numbers of complex and acutely unwell patients. In this case, doctors sought and were provided with advice from a consultant on call. The consultant on call will attend to perform certain procedures (in line with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine guidance). With the benefit of hindsight, consultant presence would have provided support for the trainees.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 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 on-call consultants to confirm remote access to the electronic healthcare record.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Teams will ensure consultants on call confirm that they have remote access to the electronic healthcare record, this will eliminate the risk that documentation is not completed in relation to critical decisions.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 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 case was not classified as a serious incident because reviews concluded that care failures did not cause or alter the outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This patient’s death on 7 December 2022 was unexpected and was reported as an incident via the Datix reporting system but it was not presented for multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion as a serious incident. The fail safe whereby a mortality and morbidity meeting triggers Serious Incident Review Assurance Panel (SIRMAP) discussion did not happen because although learning was identified the outcome was not felt to have been due to failures in care. Following a prompt from HM Coroner via the legal team, the case was presented to SIRMAP in July 2023 and the panel identified learning but did not find that the outcome could have been altered in this case.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 4 · response
Published 14 May 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 primarily local concerns are for Barts Health NHS Foundation Trust to address.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In preparing this response, Departmental officials have made enquiries with NHS England. The department is advised that the matters of concern raised are primarily local and for Barts Health NHS Foundation Trust to address, who confirm they are in receipt of this report. The report provides a further opportunity for the Trust to reflect and assure itself that it has acted on all the learnings to be taken from Mr Morton’s death. It is vital that lessons are learnt collectively, and changes are made to reflect where things have gone wrong, which is essential to ensure the NHS provides safe, high-quality care.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 1 · response
Published 14 May 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

    Deliver Mental Capacity Act teaching, including practical application, across all A&E staff grades.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 May 2024.

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

  1. 1

    Clinical reviews concluded cardiac arrest was likely during anaesthesia and the outcome would probably have been the same after sedation.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustDisputes 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

Deliver Mental Capacity Act teaching, including practical application, across all A&E staff grades.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A specific induction programme has been formulated for the A&E which specifically covers themes such as the mental capacity act, contemporaneous documentation including emergency administered drugs with rationale, sedation and also escalation. The induction programme will be delivered and evidenced retained. A specific presentation relating to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) its implementation in practice and the wider considerations will be delivered within the teaching programmes for all grades within A&E.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 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

Clinical reviews concluded cardiac arrest was likely during anaesthesia and the outcome would probably have been the same after sedation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust accept and apologise for the fact that the documentation available to the coroner impeded investigation and decision making. The clinical view from the ITU mortality and morbidity meeting and additional post inquest clinical review is that, considering the degree of metabolic derangement, this patient would likely still have suffered a cardiac arrest on induction of anaesthesia, and clinical outcome most likely to have been the same as that consequent to cardiac arrest secondary to the administration of sedation.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026