PFD report

Cristofaro PRIOLO · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 May 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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
17

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 raised7

  1. Failure to attempt CPR when cardiac arrest occurs
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest
  2. Failure to prepare food safely for people at risk of choking
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate food-hygiene controls in care settingsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate provision of food for care residentsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe implementation of choking-risk prevention measures
  3. Lack of frequent appropriate emergency resuscitation training
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure staff competence in resuscitationPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably respond to patient breathing emergenciesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate staff competence to provide first aidPart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency response to patient collapse
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.13

  1. Action

    Consider implementing more frequent competency checks or opportunities to practise chest compressions.

    Stated by BupaStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 May 2022.
  2. Action

    Strengthen and embed the Highgate Mealtime Champion role to oversee mealtime support and compliance with dietary requirements.

    Stated by BupaStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 May 2022.
  3. Action

    Add safe-feeding materials and a competency check to the Nutrition and Hydration training module.

    Stated by BupaStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 May 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 evidence indicates Highgate BLS delegates passed competency assessments, disputing that training competence was absent.

    Stated by BupaDisputes 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 attempt CPR when cardiac arrest occurs

Wider context from the report

“A BUPA internal investigation has already taken place and identified some learning points. However, there are matters outstanding around training and audit. Obviously, the cauliflower for Mr Priolo should have been prepared properly for him by the catering staff, but quite apart from that, Mr Priolo’s carers were never assessed when they were feeding him. Whilst the carer who was feeding him when he choked knew that he needed small, soft mouthfuls that he should be allowed to swallow completely before offering the next, that is not what happened. He was fed a large quantity of cauliflower cheese, it seems relatively quickly, that was undercooked to the point of being almost raw, making it much too hard for him to swallow safely. Staff, including qualified nursing staff, then failed to give appropriate first aid. Even 18 months after the event when they were giving evidence in court this week – the inquest had been delayed to allow a police investigation – some staff were unable to describe the correct treatment for choking. Most significantly, nursing staff failed to recognise that Mr Priolo had suffered a cardiac arrest. They then failed to attempt CPR. After the arrival of paramedics, one member of nursing staff did attempt to give chest compressions, but these were ineffective. That is likely to be the result of panic and distress. These are common feelings in an emergency situation, but the risk of them overwhelming resuscitation efforts may be reduced by frequent appropriate training. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest.

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 prepare food safely for people at risk of choking

Wider context from the report

“A BUPA internal investigation has already taken place and identified some learning points. However, there are matters outstanding around training and audit. Obviously, the cauliflower for Mr Priolo should have been prepared properly for him by the catering staff, but quite apart from that, Mr Priolo’s carers were never assessed when they were feeding him. Whilst the carer who was feeding him when he choked knew that he needed small, soft mouthfuls that he should be allowed to swallow completely before offering the next, that is not what happened. He was fed a large quantity of cauliflower cheese, it seems relatively quickly, that was undercooked to the point of being almost raw, making it much too hard for him to swallow safely. Staff, including qualified nursing staff, then failed to give appropriate first aid. Even 18 months after the event when they were giving evidence in court this week – the inquest had been delayed to allow a police investigation – some staff were unable to describe the correct treatment for choking. Most significantly, nursing staff failed to recognise that Mr Priolo had suffered a cardiac arrest. They then failed to attempt CPR. After the arrival of paramedics, one member of nursing staff did attempt to give chest compressions, but these were ineffective. That is likely to be the result of panic and distress. These are common feelings in an emergency situation, but the risk of them overwhelming resuscitation efforts may be reduced by frequent appropriate training. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate food-hygiene controls in care settings; Inadequate provision of food for care residents; Unsafe implementation of choking-risk prevention measures.

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

Lack of frequent appropriate emergency resuscitation training

Wider context from the report

“A BUPA internal investigation has already taken place and identified some learning points. However, there are matters outstanding around training and audit. Obviously, the cauliflower for Mr Priolo should have been prepared properly for him by the catering staff, but quite apart from that, Mr Priolo’s carers were never assessed when they were feeding him. Whilst the carer who was feeding him when he choked knew that he needed small, soft mouthfuls that he should be allowed to swallow completely before offering the next, that is not what happened. He was fed a large quantity of cauliflower cheese, it seems relatively quickly, that was undercooked to the point of being almost raw, making it much too hard for him to swallow safely. Staff, including qualified nursing staff, then failed to give appropriate first aid. Even 18 months after the event when they were giving evidence in court this week – the inquest had been delayed to allow a police investigation – some staff were unable to describe the correct treatment for choking. Most significantly, nursing staff failed to recognise that Mr Priolo had suffered a cardiac arrest. They then failed to attempt CPR. After the arrival of paramedics, one member of nursing staff did attempt to give chest compressions, but these were ineffective. That is likely to be the result of panic and distress. These are common feelings in an emergency situation, but the risk of them overwhelming resuscitation efforts may be reduced by frequent appropriate training. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure staff competence in resuscitation; Failure to reliably respond to patient breathing emergencies; Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid; Unreliable emergency response to patient collapse.

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 appropriate first aid for choking

Wider context from the report

“A BUPA internal investigation has already taken place and identified some learning points. However, there are matters outstanding around training and audit. Obviously, the cauliflower for Mr Priolo should have been prepared properly for him by the catering staff, but quite apart from that, Mr Priolo’s carers were never assessed when they were feeding him. Whilst the carer who was feeding him when he choked knew that he needed small, soft mouthfuls that he should be allowed to swallow completely before offering the next, that is not what happened. He was fed a large quantity of cauliflower cheese, it seems relatively quickly, that was undercooked to the point of being almost raw, making it much too hard for him to swallow safely. Staff, including qualified nursing staff, then failed to give appropriate first aid. Even 18 months after the event when they were giving evidence in court this week – the inquest had been delayed to allow a police investigation – some staff were unable to describe the correct treatment for choking. Most significantly, nursing staff failed to recognise that Mr Priolo had suffered a cardiac arrest. They then failed to attempt CPR. After the arrival of paramedics, one member of nursing staff did attempt to give chest compressions, but these were ineffective. That is likely to be the result of panic and distress. These are common feelings in an emergency situation, but the risk of them overwhelming resuscitation efforts may be reduced by frequent appropriate training. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid; Unsafe implementation of choking-risk prevention measures.

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 assess carers when feeding people at risk of choking

Wider context from the report

“A BUPA internal investigation has already taken place and identified some learning points. However, there are matters outstanding around training and audit. Obviously, the cauliflower for Mr Priolo should have been prepared properly for him by the catering staff, but quite apart from that, Mr Priolo’s carers were never assessed when they were feeding him. Whilst the carer who was feeding him when he choked knew that he needed small, soft mouthfuls that he should be allowed to swallow completely before offering the next, that is not what happened. He was fed a large quantity of cauliflower cheese, it seems relatively quickly, that was undercooked to the point of being almost raw, making it much too hard for him to swallow safely. Staff, including qualified nursing staff, then failed to give appropriate first aid. Even 18 months after the event when they were giving evidence in court this week – the inquest had been delayed to allow a police investigation – some staff were unable to describe the correct treatment for choking. Most significantly, nursing staff failed to recognise that Mr Priolo had suffered a cardiac arrest. They then failed to attempt CPR. After the arrival of paramedics, one member of nursing staff did attempt to give chest compressions, but these were ineffective. That is likely to be the result of panic and distress. These are common feelings in an emergency situation, but the risk of them overwhelming resuscitation efforts may be reduced by frequent appropriate training. ”

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 deliver effective chest compressions during resuscitation

Wider context from the report

“A BUPA internal investigation has already taken place and identified some learning points. However, there are matters outstanding around training and audit. Obviously, the cauliflower for Mr Priolo should have been prepared properly for him by the catering staff, but quite apart from that, Mr Priolo’s carers were never assessed when they were feeding him. Whilst the carer who was feeding him when he choked knew that he needed small, soft mouthfuls that he should be allowed to swallow completely before offering the next, that is not what happened. He was fed a large quantity of cauliflower cheese, it seems relatively quickly, that was undercooked to the point of being almost raw, making it much too hard for him to swallow safely. Staff, including qualified nursing staff, then failed to give appropriate first aid. Even 18 months after the event when they were giving evidence in court this week – the inquest had been delayed to allow a police investigation – some staff were unable to describe the correct treatment for choking. Most significantly, nursing staff failed to recognise that Mr Priolo had suffered a cardiac arrest. They then failed to attempt CPR. After the arrival of paramedics, one member of nursing staff did attempt to give chest compressions, but these were ineffective. That is likely to be the result of panic and distress. These are common feelings in an emergency situation, but the risk of them overwhelming resuscitation efforts may be reduced by frequent appropriate training. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest.

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 recognise cardiac arrest

Wider context from the report

“A BUPA internal investigation has already taken place and identified some learning points. However, there are matters outstanding around training and audit. Obviously, the cauliflower for Mr Priolo should have been prepared properly for him by the catering staff, but quite apart from that, Mr Priolo’s carers were never assessed when they were feeding him. Whilst the carer who was feeding him when he choked knew that he needed small, soft mouthfuls that he should be allowed to swallow completely before offering the next, that is not what happened. He was fed a large quantity of cauliflower cheese, it seems relatively quickly, that was undercooked to the point of being almost raw, making it much too hard for him to swallow safely. Staff, including qualified nursing staff, then failed to give appropriate first aid. Even 18 months after the event when they were giving evidence in court this week – the inquest had been delayed to allow a police investigation – some staff were unable to describe the correct treatment for choking. Most significantly, nursing staff failed to recognise that Mr Priolo had suffered a cardiac arrest. They then failed to attempt CPR. After the arrival of paramedics, one member of nursing staff did attempt to give chest compressions, but these were ineffective. That is likely to be the result of panic and distress. These are common feelings in an emergency situation, but the risk of them overwhelming resuscitation efforts may be reduced by frequent appropriate training. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deterioration; Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest.

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

Consider implementing more frequent competency checks or opportunities to practise chest compressions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will, however, consider whether or not to implement more frequent competency checks, or opportunities to practice chest compressions. It should be kept in mind though that nurses have a professional obligation to take responsibility and ensure that they feel confident to carry out their role and maintain their competencies in line with NMC requirements.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 4 · response
Published 12 May 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

Strengthen and embed the Highgate Mealtime Champion role to oversee mealtime support and compliance with dietary requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The role of “Mealtime Champion” was strengthened in the Highgate. The person fulfilling this role in the Highgate assists with the mealtime experience of residents and ensures that any dietary”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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

Add safe-feeding materials and a competency check to the Nutrition and Hydration training module.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. We have asked for additional materials and a competency check to be added to the current Nutrition and Hydration training module and we will work with our Learning and Development team to ensure this happens.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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

Review HACCP, nutrition, mealtime, IDDSI and induction materials to align policies and training with safe dietary assistance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. A review of the HACCP policy, Nutrition and Weight Management policy, Mealtime Experience Standards, and associated training such as the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) will take place to ensure the actions described in this response are reflected in policy and training. This will include a review of induction material (Nutrition and Hydration) to ensure staff are taught how to assist residents with dietary intake in a safe way applicable to their needs.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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

Make frozen IDDSI-accredited meals available from suppliers as a contingency for appropriately modified meals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. The Director of Hotel Services and Customer First will communicate with all Chef Managers and their teams and relay the lessons learned. This will ensure there is awareness across the business of what happened at The Highgate, how we can learn from this and what we have changed as a result of it. Our catering teams can then implement the new processes. We are also exploring ways of providing face to face training for our catering teams on the requirements of IDDSI and are making available frozen IDDSI accredited meals from our suppliers so that our services can access appropriately modified meals as a contingency.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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

Enforce the Resident Mealtime Form process and maintain its monthly or needs-based review for resident-specific dietary information.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The Resident Mealtime Form (completed by the nursing and care team at the point of a resident’s admission and used by the catering team) will be enforced. This will ensure that the existing process is operating effectively. This form is designed to capture resident specific information such as allergies, modified diet requirements or specific cutlery required. The form is reviewed monthly or more frequently as required. At Highgate, a copy of this form is kept within the Home’s SaLT folders, including the SaLT folder kept in the kitchen. The SaLT folder includes for each of the Home’s residents: dietary information, the Resident Mealtime Form, eating/drinking protocols, IDDSI recommendations for residents, recommendations/advice from SaLT, the IDDSI framework and guidance on this, and blank SaLT referral forms.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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

Retrain remaining Highgate staff and ensure they are competent and confident to manage future choking, cardiac arrest and CPR incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10. Given the concerns raised at inquest regarding the competence of some of The Highgate staff, we will ensure that those who remain within The Highgate are retrained, competent and confident to manage any further incidents in the future.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 4 · response
Published 12 May 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 and competency-assess Basic Life Support and DNACPR training, including practical choking and CPR assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Training around Basic Life Support (“BLS” – the content of which includes addressing and dealing with choking incidents and CPR) and DNACPRs. This training involved an online/classroom based training session, as well as a practical session, where learners are practically assessed, and are not deemed competent until the trainer is satisfied that a learner is competent. We are mindful of your on-going concerns in relation to those nurses who gave evidence during the inquest, and we have said more on this point below – see “concerns 3, 4 & 5”, below.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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

Reinforce and strengthen the Mealtime Champion role across the care-home portfolio.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The role of Mealtime Champion generally is included and defined within our Mealtime Experience document, which applies to all our care homes. As a general point, this role will be reinforced and strengthened throughout our portfolio. The Mealtime Champion is defined in the document as being someone who is in charge of coordinating the mealtime experience for residents, and actively supervises the meal service. They need to ensure that residents receive the appropriate levels of nutrition, hydration and supervision, to avoid instances such as choking.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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

Communicate lessons learned and changed catering processes to Chef Managers and catering teams across the business.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. The Director of Hotel Services and Customer First will communicate with all Chef Managers and their teams and relay the lessons learned. This will ensure there is awareness across the business of what happened at The Highgate, how we can learn from this and what we have changed as a result of it. Our catering teams can then implement the new processes. We are also exploring ways of providing face to face training for our catering teams on the requirements of IDDSI and are making available frozen IDDSI accredited meals from our suppliers so that our services can access appropriately modified meals as a contingency.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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

Develop and roll out role-specific IDDSI descriptor videos across the organisation, updating the Mealtime Experience document afterwards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Bupa, in collaboration with Robot Coupe, will develop a suite of short videos, targeted to film in July 2022, on each of the IDDSI descriptors levels. This should be completed by the end of August 2022 and will be made available across the organisation and rolled out to employees subject to their roles. The Mealtime Experience document (referred to earlier in this response) will be reviewed in line with the IDDSI work we are planning and will be updated once the videos have been produced.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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

Implement UK-wide kitchen quality assurance checks for food temperature, thorough cooking and required consistency before food leaves the kitchen.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Bupa will implement a process to ensure food is quality assured prior to leaving the kitchen. This will be clearly described in our HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) policy and documented next to the temperature checks within our standard paperwork. This new process will ensure that all food leaves the kitchen, a) at the right temperature and b) cooked thoroughly or the correct consistency. This would address and identify any repeat of undercooked food leaving the kitchen. This process will not be unique to the Highgate, it will be adopted UK wide across our portfolio.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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

Have the Internal Lead Inspector attend Basic Life Support training to assess its quality and efficacy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. Our Internal Lead Inspector will attend training in Basic Life Support (BLS) to assess the quality and efficacy of the training provided internally by Bupa. To reassure you, our BLS and Emergency First Aid at Work trainers are all qualified and trained by external training providers. During this training our staff are evaluated and leave the classroom assessed as competent. This includes a practical assessment of delivery of chest compressions.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 4 · response
Published 12 May 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 evidence indicates Highgate BLS delegates passed competency assessments, disputing that training competence was absent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We did, however, make enquiries with our Learning and Development team as to the training provided to staff at Highgate, including some of those who gave evidence at the inquest. We wanted to be sure that there had been no issue with their engagement or competency checks. The feedback from our trainer on the BLS training delivered at Highgate was that all delegates (which would include some of those who gave evidence during the inquest) had all passed first time and had a completed competency assessment on file, which confirmed, amongst other things, competent to deliver CPR and how to respond to a choking incident. However, the relevant staff will attend further training to ensure competency.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 4 · response
Published 12 May 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

Annual BLS training frequency is not out of step with other social care providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. We also note your comments in relation to the frequency of training. At present, BLS is scheduled on an annual basis, although during the pandemic, there was a time during which practical assessments by trainers could not take place, due to measures put in place to comply with government guidance and infection prevention control measures. To the best of our knowledge, the frequency of our training is not out of step with other social care providers and our focus will be as outlined above, which is ensuring the quality and competency of our trainers, the content of our training and the competency checks, to ensure staff leave training confident and competent.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 4 · response
Published 12 May 2022

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.4

  1. 1

    Digitise Resident Mealtime Form information through PCS electronic care planning for central staff access and scrutiny.

    Stated by BupaStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 May 2022.
  2. 2

    Produce recorded Teams meeting materials to support cascading lessons and actions arising from incidents.

    Stated by BupaStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 May 2022.
  3. 3

    Check residents’ choking risk assessments for accuracy and verify them through Speech and Language Therapy review.

    Stated by BupaStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 May 2022.
  4. 4

    Implement and recruit the new operational structure, including Director of Hotel Services and Customer First roles and a team driving catering and dietary standards.

    Stated by BupaStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 May 2022.

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

Digitise Resident Mealtime Form information through PCS electronic care planning for central staff access and scrutiny.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. As we transition to PCS electronic care planning, this process will become digitised and visible centrally for scrutiny by all staff.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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

Produce recorded Teams meeting materials to support cascading lessons and actions arising from incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the concerns you raised in your Regulation 28 Report, we wish to assure you that The Highgate and Bupa continue to foster a culture of continuous improvement and learning, to ensure that lessons learned are embedded. We have looked at our current process for cascading lessons learned and will produce further material in the form of recorded Teams meetings to allow people to cascade action arising from incidents in a different format.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 4 · response
Published 12 May 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

Check residents’ choking risk assessments for accuracy and verify them through Speech and Language Therapy review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• All Choking Risk Assessments in residents’ care plans were checked for accuracy immediately after the incident. This review was also verified by a visiting SaLT team therapist who confirmed the accuracy of information. This information is checked for all new residents during a care plan audit which is carried out within 72 hours of any resident being admitted into the building.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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

Implement and recruit the new operational structure, including Director of Hotel Services and Customer First roles and a team driving catering and dietary standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. Bupa are currently implementing a new structure into its operation which we aim to have fully recruited and implemented by the end of October 2022; this target date is slightly longer than others, to take account of the recruitment process. The new structure will involve the Director of Hotel Services and Customer First reporting into the Care Services Operations Director. ‘Customer First’ is our new customer experiential learning and improvement training. This will be overseen by a newly appointed team to drive standards in customer services, including catering and diet. During this training, staff have the opportunity to assist each other with eating a simple food item. This allows them to immerse themselves in how this feels and how it can be improved by putting yourself in that person’s shoes.”

Source location

Response from BUPA Care Services
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026