PFD report

Joshua Ethan BURGESS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Feb 2024•Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 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 raised4

  1. Failure to refer dosage-clarification correspondence to a clinician
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable medication dosage verification and communicationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence
  2. Failure to refer medication-change correspondence to a clinician for consideration
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable doctor-to-doctor coordination of prescribingPart of recurring concern: Unreliable implementation of medication changesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable medication dosage verification and communicationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence
  3. Failure to give the prescribing GP express instructions to amend Brivaracetam prescriptions after dosage changes
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable doctor-to-doctor coordination of prescribingPart of recurring concern: Unreliable medication dosage verification and communication
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

    Update weekly and monthly managers’ medication audits to verify written authorisation, dosage changes and timely receipt of replacement prescriptions.

    Stated by Godfrey CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 February 2024.
  2. Action

    Implement a local medication policy covering medication receipt, transcription, altered labels, missed doses, written prescribing confirmation and triangulation between prescribers.

    Stated by Godfrey CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 February 2024.
  3. Action

    Review internal policies and procedures against the coroner’s concerns and identify necessary changes.

    Stated by Godfrey CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 February 2024.

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

  1. Position

    A standardised clinic-letter template cannot be created immediately because implementation across the Trust requires substantial timeframes.

    Stated by Brook Medical Centre and University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustUnable 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

Failure to refer dosage-clarification correspondence to a clinician

Wider context from the report

“1. The Neurology department of the Royal Stoke University Hospital operated a system whereby it did not instruct the prescribing GP to amend the prescription of Brivaracetam when changes to dosage had been agreed with Mr Burgess’ mother. The evidence from the Consultant Neurologist was that an assumption was made that when changes to medication had been discussed and agreed that Mr Burgess’ mother would attend the GP surgery to discuss the changes in medication. The same witness gave evidence that it was assumed a pharmacist within the GP surgery would read the correspondence from the neurology department and make the necessary changes to prescriptions without express instructions to do so. 2. The “workflow” within the Brook Medical Centre was such that letters sent from the Neurology department discussing changes in medication (albeit not containing a request to amend the prescription) were processed by support staff and not referred to a clinician to consider and so no changes were made to the prescription. 3. The letter of 27 July 2022 from the Neurology department to Brook Medical Centre seeking clarification as to the correct dosage of Brivaracetam was processed by support staff and a summary medications sent without referral to a clinician. 4. Godfrey Care were informed by Mr Burgess’ mother and the Neurology department of Royal Stoke University that the appropriate dose of Brivaracetam was 4ml twice daily. Medication was withheld between 22-26 July 2022 due to the information not being in writing from the prescriber, however the evidence at inquest was that 10ml twice daily was commenced on 26 July 2022 following a call to the 111 service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable medication dosage verification and communication; Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence.

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 refer medication-change correspondence to a clinician for consideration

Wider context from the report

“1. The Neurology department of the Royal Stoke University Hospital operated a system whereby it did not instruct the prescribing GP to amend the prescription of Brivaracetam when changes to dosage had been agreed with Mr Burgess’ mother. The evidence from the Consultant Neurologist was that an assumption was made that when changes to medication had been discussed and agreed that Mr Burgess’ mother would attend the GP surgery to discuss the changes in medication. The same witness gave evidence that it was assumed a pharmacist within the GP surgery would read the correspondence from the neurology department and make the necessary changes to prescriptions without express instructions to do so. 2. The “workflow” within the Brook Medical Centre was such that letters sent from the Neurology department discussing changes in medication (albeit not containing a request to amend the prescription) were processed by support staff and not referred to a clinician to consider and so no changes were made to the prescription. 3. The letter of 27 July 2022 from the Neurology department to Brook Medical Centre seeking clarification as to the correct dosage of Brivaracetam was processed by support staff and a summary medications sent without referral to a clinician. 4. Godfrey Care were informed by Mr Burgess’ mother and the Neurology department of Royal Stoke University that the appropriate dose of Brivaracetam was 4ml twice daily. Medication was withheld between 22-26 July 2022 due to the information not being in writing from the prescriber, however the evidence at inquest was that 10ml twice daily was commenced on 26 July 2022 following a call to the 111 service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable doctor-to-doctor coordination of prescribing; Unreliable implementation of medication changes; Unreliable medication dosage verification and communication; Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence.

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 give the prescribing GP express instructions to amend Brivaracetam prescriptions after dosage changes

Wider context from the report

“1. The Neurology department of the Royal Stoke University Hospital operated a system whereby it did not instruct the prescribing GP to amend the prescription of Brivaracetam when changes to dosage had been agreed with Mr Burgess’ mother. The evidence from the Consultant Neurologist was that an assumption was made that when changes to medication had been discussed and agreed that Mr Burgess’ mother would attend the GP surgery to discuss the changes in medication. The same witness gave evidence that it was assumed a pharmacist within the GP surgery would read the correspondence from the neurology department and make the necessary changes to prescriptions without express instructions to do so. 2. The “workflow” within the Brook Medical Centre was such that letters sent from the Neurology department discussing changes in medication (albeit not containing a request to amend the prescription) were processed by support staff and not referred to a clinician to consider and so no changes were made to the prescription. 3. The letter of 27 July 2022 from the Neurology department to Brook Medical Centre seeking clarification as to the correct dosage of Brivaracetam was processed by support staff and a summary medications sent without referral to a clinician. 4. Godfrey Care were informed by Mr Burgess’ mother and the Neurology department of Royal Stoke University that the appropriate dose of Brivaracetam was 4ml twice daily. Medication was withheld between 22-26 July 2022 due to the information not being in writing from the prescriber, however the evidence at inquest was that 10ml twice daily was commenced on 26 July 2022 following a call to the 111 service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPs; Unreliable doctor-to-doctor coordination of prescribing; Unreliable medication dosage verification and communication.

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 maintain a reliable written basis for Brivaracetam dosage administration

Wider context from the report

“1. The Neurology department of the Royal Stoke University Hospital operated a system whereby it did not instruct the prescribing GP to amend the prescription of Brivaracetam when changes to dosage had been agreed with Mr Burgess’ mother. The evidence from the Consultant Neurologist was that an assumption was made that when changes to medication had been discussed and agreed that Mr Burgess’ mother would attend the GP surgery to discuss the changes in medication. The same witness gave evidence that it was assumed a pharmacist within the GP surgery would read the correspondence from the neurology department and make the necessary changes to prescriptions without express instructions to do so. 2. The “workflow” within the Brook Medical Centre was such that letters sent from the Neurology department discussing changes in medication (albeit not containing a request to amend the prescription) were processed by support staff and not referred to a clinician to consider and so no changes were made to the prescription. 3. The letter of 27 July 2022 from the Neurology department to Brook Medical Centre seeking clarification as to the correct dosage of Brivaracetam was processed by support staff and a summary medications sent without referral to a clinician. 4. Godfrey Care were informed by Mr Burgess’ mother and the Neurology department of Royal Stoke University that the appropriate dose of Brivaracetam was 4ml twice daily. Medication was withheld between 22-26 July 2022 due to the information not being in writing from the prescriber, however the evidence at inquest was that 10ml twice daily was commenced on 26 July 2022 following a call to the 111 service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable medication dosage verification and communication; Unsafe medication administration.

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 weekly and monthly managers’ medication audits to verify written authorisation, dosage changes and timely receipt of replacement prescriptions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Run through the reviewed managers monthly medication audit to ensure expectations are clear.”

Source location

Response from Godfrey Care
Page 1 · response
Published 21 February 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 a local medication policy covering medication receipt, transcription, altered labels, missed doses, written prescribing confirmation and triangulation between prescribers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Reviewed Policies and Procedures The following actions will be implemented by 1st April 2024.”

Source location

Response from Godfrey Care
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 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 internal policies and procedures against the coroner’s concerns and identify necessary changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Godfrey Care Response We intend to review our internal policies and procedures considering the coroners concerns and identify where changes need to be made. Below, we respond to the coroner’s areas of concern, setting out what we have already done, what we are doing now, and what we intend to do in the future.”

Source location

Response from Godfrey Care
Page 1 · response
Published 21 February 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 staff medication competency assessments to test clarification of unclear directions, MAR-label discrepancies and verbal medication changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3 The Staff Medication Competency Assessment has been reviewed and now includes the following questions.”

Source location

Response from Godfrey Care
Page 3 · response
Published 21 February 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 standardised clinic-letter template specifying medication changes and clear actions for prescribing GPs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The Trust’s outpatient clinic letter standards describe the structure of clinic letters based on standard headings. You will recall that ████████ (GP) gave evidence at the inquest to the effect that there were areas in the acute Trust settings which already provided discharge information which he considered to be of a ‘gold standard.’ The Trust is committed to working towards improving compliance with these standards. To support this, we are working towards creation of a standardised template in our ‘Medisec’ system (system where letters are created). This will include a section for changes to medications and clear actions for those in the primary care setting, for example, instructions for the prescribing GP to amend prescriptions.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
Page 4 · response
Published 21 February 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 GP review and triage of all neurology correspondence received by Brook Medical Centre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. We have discussed the above process with nominated individuals from the ICS. Due to the timeframes that would be required for the creation of standardised template for clinic letters within the ‘Medisec’ system across the Trust, we are reiterating the Trust standards and ████████ has agreed, with immediate effect, that all clinic letters received from neurology will be reviewed by a GP at Brook Medical Centre. This has been implemented due to the acknowledgement that neurological conditions are often complex, and it is more likely that they will require frequent medication changes, titration and/or closer monitoring.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
Page 4 · response
Published 21 February 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

Have a GP review and triage all neurology correspondence and clinic letters received by Brook Medical Centre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. We have discussed the above process with nominated individuals from the ICS. Due to the timeframes that would be required for the creation of standardised template for clinic letters within the ‘Medisec’ system across the Trust, we are reiterating the Trust standards and ████████ has agreed, with immediate effect, that all clinic letters received from neurology will be reviewed by a GP at Brook Medical Centre. This has been implemented due to the acknowledgement that neurological conditions are often complex, and it is more likely that they will require frequent medication changes, titration and/or closer monitoring.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 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 standardised Medisec clinic-letter template specifying medication changes and clear prescribing actions for primary care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The Trust’s outpatient clinic letter standards describe the structure of clinic letters based on standard headings. You will recall that ████████ (GP) gave evidence at the inquest to the effect that there were areas in the acute Trust setting which already provided discharge information which he considered to be of a ‘gold standard.’ The Trust is committed to working towards improving compliance with these standards. To support this, we are working towards creation of a standardised template in our ‘Medisec’ system (system where letters are created). This will include a section for changes to medications and clear actions for those in the primary care setting, for example, instructions for the prescribing GP to amend prescriptions.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 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

A standardised clinic-letter template cannot be created immediately because implementation across the Trust requires substantial timeframes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. We have discussed the above process with nominated individuals from the ICS. Due to the timeframes that would be required for the creation of standardised template for clinic letters within the ‘Medisec’ system across the Trust, we are reiterating the Trust standards and ████████ has agreed, with immediate effect, that all clinic letters received from neurology will be reviewed by a GP at Brook Medical Centre. This has been implemented due to the acknowledgement that neurological conditions are often complex, and it is more likely that they will require frequent medication changes, titration and/or closer monitoring.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
Page 4 · response
Published 21 February 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 delay in administering medication did not contribute to the death.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Whilst this concern is not directly addressed to the acute Trust (UHNM) or Brook medical Centre, it has been considered as part of the wider learning following Joshua’s death. Medications for epilepsy is considered across the healthcare economy to be ‘critical’. The National Patient Safety Agency (2010) defined critical medicines as ‘medicines which can result in patient death or serious harm if there are delays in their administration’. Whist the Coroner found that the delay in administering medications on this occasion did not contribute to Joshua’s death, we believe that further education within the care home setting is required. With this in mind, we will work together with the local authority to ensure that up to date communications are shared across the Stoke on Trent and North Staffordshire health and social care economy to reiterate this message.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
Page 4 · response
Published 21 February 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.3

  1. 1

    Deliver medication communication and lessons-learned training for deputy managers, managers and senior leaders.

    Stated by Godfrey CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 February 2024.
  2. 2

    Share updated communications across the local health and social care economy to reinforce timely administration of critical epilepsy medicines.

    Stated by Brook Medical Centre and University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 February 2024.
  3. 3

    Share up-to-date communications across the local health and social care economy to reinforce care-home messages about timely administration of critical epilepsy medicines.

    Stated by Brook Medical Centre and University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 February 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 care service cannot undertake remote prescribing because it lacks access to a stock of medicines.

    Stated by Godfrey CareUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 medication communication and lessons-learned training for deputy managers, managers and senior leaders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Lessons Learned On the 1st March 2024, medication communication and lessons learned session completed with all deputy managers, managers, and senior leaders of the organisation. Criteria covered and addressed:”

Source location

Response from Godfrey Care
Page 1 · response
Published 21 February 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

Share updated communications across the local health and social care economy to reinforce timely administration of critical epilepsy medicines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Whilst this concern is not directly addressed to the acute Trust (UHNM) or Brook medical Centre, it has been considered as part of the wider learning following Joshua’s death. Medications for epilepsy is considered across the healthcare economy to be ‘critical’. The National Patient Safety Agency (2010) defined critical medicines as ‘medicines which can result in patient death or serious harm if there are delays in their administration’. Whist the Coroner found that the delay in administering medications on this occasion did not contribute to Joshua’s death, we believe that further education within the care home setting is required. With this in mind, we will work together with the local authority to ensure that up to date communications are shared across the Stoke on Trent and North Staffordshire health and social care economy to reiterate this message.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
Page 4 · response
Published 21 February 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

Share up-to-date communications across the local health and social care economy to reinforce care-home messages about timely administration of critical epilepsy medicines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“there are delays in their administration’. Whilst the Coroner found that the delay in administering medications on this occasion did not contribute to Joshua’s death, we believe that further education within the care home setting is required. With this in mind, we will work together with the local authority to ensure that up to date communications are shared across the Stoke on Trent and North Staffordshire health and social care economy to reiterate this message. Whilst this has not yet been implemented, it will be taken forward by end of May 2024.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of North Midlands
Page 3 · response
Published 21 February 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 care service cannot undertake remote prescribing because it lacks access to a stock of medicines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Suitably trained persons should note that remote prescribing cannot be undertaken in a care service because they do not have access to a stock of medicines.””

Source location

Response from Godfrey Care
Page 3 · response
Published 21 February 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