PFD report

Terence Harry Clark · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Aug 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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

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. Patient safety investigations failing to review evidence relevant to governance and coronial investigations
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
  2. Failure to secure and document clinical apparatus relevant to investigations
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to preserve clinical evidence and data after serious clinical eventsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable preservation and disclosure of material for death investigations
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.2

  1. Action

    Review and update the Bereavement policy to clarify when tubes, lines and devices remain in situ after sudden or unexpected death, including medical examiner involvement.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 September 2024.
  2. Action

    Discuss the removal guidance at safety huddles with senior nursing and site teams to reinforce a lower threshold for coroners’ office discussion.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The NG tube’s removal was not considered materially relevant to the care issues identified in the internal investigation.

    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

Patient safety investigations failing to review evidence relevant to governance and coronial investigations

Wider context from the report

“B. The Trust conducted a patient safety investigation into the circumstances leading to Mr Clark’s death, the investigation did not identify the removal of the NG tube as a significant factor worthy of scrutiny. Both of these issues raise a concern that the Trust can not adequately secure and review evidence relevant to governance and coronial investigations, necessary to mitigate risks of future fatalities. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident 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

Failure to secure and document clinical apparatus relevant to investigations

Wider context from the report

“A. Despite Mr Clark having been subject to a nil-by-mouth order for 24 hrs prior to collapse, cream-coloured liquid food was found in Mr Clark’s airway at autopsy. The NG tube, inserted on the day of death had been removed and misplaced prior to autopsy. No evidence exists to indicate, when the apparatus was removed, by whom, on whose instruction or why. The removal and loss of this apparatus impeded the proper investigation of this death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to preserve clinical evidence and data after serious clinical events; Unreliable preservation and disclosure of material for death investigations.

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

Review and update the Bereavement policy to clarify when tubes, lines and devices remain in situ after sudden or unexpected death, including medical examiner involvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this case, we are reviewing the Bereavement policy to clarify the guidance around removal of tubes, lines and devices. Where a sudden or unexpected death has occurred, the policy will mandate that tubes, lines and devices are left in situ until after:”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 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

Discuss the removal guidance at safety huddles with senior nursing and site teams to reinforce a lower threshold for coroners’ office discussion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This case has already been discussed at our safety huddles, with the senior nursing and site teams to underline the above and ensure a lower threshold for discussion with the coroners office should there be any doubt about removal of lines etc. Any conversation will be documented in the patient record. We will be cascading the learning from this incident and embedding this within training across the Trust.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 3 · response
Published 2 September 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 NG tube’s removal was not considered materially relevant to the care issues identified in the internal investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I will respond to these items together as they are interlinked. Mr Clark had an NG tube inserted on the 1st November 2023. It was not used prior to the X-Ray being conducted at which point Mr Clark had a cardiac arrest and died. The investigation into his death focused on the lack of nursing escort and therefore knowledge of Mr Clark’s DNACPR status when he arrested in the department which resulted in CPR being commenced. The NG tube was removed by ward staff on the day of Mr Clark’s death following a discussion with a doctor and the site manager. At this point a coroners referral had not been considered or made. The coroner’s referral was made on the 3rd November 2023. The terms of reference for the concise internal investigation into Mr Clark’s death did not include review of the NGT removal as it was not considered to be materially relevant to any care issues identified.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 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

    Cascade learning from the incident and embed it within Trust-wide training.

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

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

Cascade learning from the incident and embed it within Trust-wide training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This case has already been discussed at our safety huddles, with the senior nursing and site teams to underline the above and ensure a lower threshold for discussion with the coroners office should there be any doubt about removal of lines etc. Any conversation will be documented in the patient record. We will be cascading the learning from this incident and embedding this within training across the Trust.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health
Page 3 · response
Published 2 September 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