PFD report

Roy Elton TRAVERS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Nov 2022•Inner North 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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised7

  1. Delays in disclosing relevant review information to HM Coroner
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable disclosure of relevant evidence in formal proceedingsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable preservation and disclosure of material for death investigations
  2. Uncertainty about discussion of patient care at the relevant morbidity and mortality meeting
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable morbidity and mortality review processes
  3. Failure to review deaths and learn lessons before inquest
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review
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.4

  1. Action

    Share learning from deaths through Grand Rounds, the Trust-wide Patient Safety newsletter and the monthly Patient Safety Forum.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 November 2022.
  2. Action

    Introduce ward-nurse training on recognising and escalating gastrointestinal bleeding, led by the endoscopy nursing team.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 November 2022.
  3. Action

    Collate learning from deaths and report it quarterly to the Trust board-level Quality Assurance Meeting.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 November 2022.

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

  1. Position

    Existing alerts, one-to-one supervision, documented support and staff skills were considered sufficient to manage the confused patient's needs safely.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS 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

Delays in disclosing relevant review information to HM Coroner

Wider context from the report

“5. As you will be aware, an ancillary function of every inquest is to attempt to learn lessons from the death, the driver behind prevention of future deaths reports. However, it is incumbent upon every hospital trust to consider the deaths of those within its care long before the matter comes to inquest, and to attempt to learn from these if possible. Whittington Health conducted a 72 hour review of Mr Travers’ care on 17 June 2022. This was disclosed to my coroner’s officer late on the afternoon of Friday, 4 November, in preparation for an inquest listed for 10am on Monday, 7 November. This meant that Mr Travers’ family and I received the 72 hour review on the morning of inquest. This had several consequences. • It placed family members in an unfair position in terms of their preparation for inquest. • It did not comply with the duty to co-operate with HM Coroner, not simply when asked but also by volunteering all relevant information. • It denied HMC the ability to call to inquest any witnesses the need for whom only became apparent from the review. • And it did not inspire confidence that Whittington Health took its own review seriously and tried to learn from it. Even the Whittington consultant giving oral evidence at inquest only saw the review on the morning of inquest, and then purely as a result of being provided it by my coroner’s officer. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable disclosure of relevant evidence in formal proceedings; Unreliable preservation and disclosure of material for death investigations.

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

Uncertainty about discussion of patient care at the relevant morbidity and mortality meeting

Wider context from the report

“3. The 72 hour review identified the need to discuss Mr Travers’ care at the relevant morbidity and mortality meeting. It is unclear from the review whether that discussion has taken place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable morbidity and mortality review 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 review deaths and learn lessons before inquest

Wider context from the report

“5. As you will be aware, an ancillary function of every inquest is to attempt to learn lessons from the death, the driver behind prevention of future deaths reports. However, it is incumbent upon every hospital trust to consider the deaths of those within its care long before the matter comes to inquest, and to attempt to learn from these if possible. Whittington Health conducted a 72 hour review of Mr Travers’ care on 17 June 2022. This was disclosed to my coroner’s officer late on the afternoon of Friday, 4 November, in preparation for an inquest listed for 10am on Monday, 7 November. This meant that Mr Travers’ family and I received the 72 hour review on the morning of inquest. This had several consequences. • It placed family members in an unfair position in terms of their preparation for inquest. • It did not comply with the duty to co-operate with HM Coroner, not simply when asked but also by volunteering all relevant information. • It denied HMC the ability to call to inquest any witnesses the need for whom only became apparent from the review. • And it did not inspire confidence that Whittington Health took its own review seriously and tried to learn from it. Even the Whittington consultant giving oral evidence at inquest only saw the review on the morning of inquest, and then purely as a result of being provided it by my coroner’s officer. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review.

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

Uncertainty about provision of direct feedback and learning opportunities after identified clinical errors

Wider context from the report

“2. As identified at the Whittington 72 hour review, the reviewing doctor who later considered Mr Travers’ condition in the light of the melaena, then failed to withhold his anti-coagulation therapy, apixaban. It is unclear from the review whether that doctor has since been given direct feedback and a learning opportunity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide feedback and learning to clinicians after safety-relevant clinical errors.

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 clinically significant melaena for timely medical review

Wider context from the report

“1. Malaena was noted at 8.45am on 4 June 2022, but it was another 12 hours before medical staff reviewed Mr Travers. There appears to have been a failure to escalate. A doctor was asked to see him earlier that day, but about a different issue. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely medical review of admitted patients.

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 provide non-discriminatory care for confused elderly patients

Wider context from the report

“4. Mr Travers’ sons told me at inquest that, when Mr Travers’ was nursed on Mary Seacole Ward, they felt that staff regarded this confused, elderly man as a nuisance. That is clearly unacceptable. In addition, Mr Travers’ family worried that this view of him clouded the judgement of those looking after him. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide patient-centred care and decisions; Failure to provide respectful and empathetic care to vulnerable patients.

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 withhold anticoagulation therapy when clinically indicated

Wider context from the report

“2. As identified at the Whittington 72 hour review, the reviewing doctor who later considered Mr Travers’ condition in the light of the melaena, then failed to withhold his anti-coagulation therapy, apixaban. It is unclear from the review whether that doctor has since been given direct feedback and a learning opportunity. ”

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

Share learning from deaths through Grand Rounds, the Trust-wide Patient Safety newsletter and the monthly Patient Safety Forum.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Learning from deaths have been shared in Grand rounds, highlighted in the Trust wide Patient Safety newsletter and the monthly Patient Safety Forum.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 November 2022

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 ward-nurse training on recognising and escalating gastrointestinal bleeding, led by the endoscopy nursing team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further training for ward nurses is being put in place to cover the recognition and escalation of gastrointestinal bleeding is being organised by the Associate Director of Nursing and will be led by the endoscopy nursing team.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 9 November 2022

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

Collate learning from deaths and report it quarterly to the Trust board-level Quality Assurance Meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Mortality review meetings are led by the department mortality leads. There is evidence to support that these meetings are taking place, including provision of timely mortality reviews. These meetings provide opportunities to capture and share the learning from death. This case was discussed at a Mortality Meeting on 21 July 2022. The Associate Medical Director for Patient Safety and Learning from deaths collates the learning and reports this to the Trust board level Quality Assurance Meeting on a quarterly basis. This has continued throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 November 2022

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 deteriorating-patient recognition and management training to ward nurses through the Critical Care Outreach Team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Ward manager ████████ has given feedback to the nurse who did not escalate melaena. The nurse has booked to attend a course in January 2023 which includes how to recognise and manage the deteriorating patient. This course will re-enforce knowledge, improve competence, encourage better communication, and enhance team working. This course is run by the Critical Care Outreach Team.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 9 November 2022

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

Existing alerts, one-to-one supervision, documented support and staff skills were considered sufficient to manage the confused patient's needs safely.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ Ward Manager of Mary Seacole, offers her sincere condolences to Mr Travers’ family. Ms Bakari advises Mr Travers had an electronic alert to notify staff of his additional care needs due to his dementia. Due to his risk of dehydration ████████ herself supported to insert a new intravenous cannula. A 1:1 was also implemented to support his safety (prevention of falls risks) whilst he was being nursed in a side room. There is clear documentation that nursing staff were supporting him with taking oral fluids and offering food and assisted him with his personal hygiene needs. Staff regularly care for patients with confusion but ████████ felt Mr Travers needs while confused were manageable on the ward and appropriate to the skills of the staff.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 November 2022

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

Existing mortality review meetings and reporting arrangements were considered sufficient to capture and share learning from deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Mortality review meetings are led by the department mortality leads. There is evidence to support that these meetings are taking place, including provision of timely mortality reviews. These meetings provide opportunities to capture and share the learning from death. This case was discussed at a Mortality Meeting on 21 July 2022. The Associate Medical Director for Patient Safety and Learning from deaths collates the learning and reports this to the Trust board level Quality Assurance Meeting on a quarterly basis. This has continued throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 November 2022

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