PFD report

Alexander Vitali Lyalyushko · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Mar 2024•Nottinghamshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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 raised4

  1. Failure to identify un-actioned service-involvement requests in post-death incident reviews
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to learn from deaths through systematic reviewPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes
  2. Insufficient learning and corrective action following deaths
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to learn from deaths through systematic reviewPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
  3. Inaccurate identification of required improvements as good practice in post-death incident reviews
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes
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

    Share the completed review addendum with the coroner and the deceased’s family.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 August 2024.
  2. Action

    Complete the further review and addendum to incorporate newly identified information and issues from the inquest findings.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 August 2024.

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 un-actioned service-involvement requests in post-death incident reviews

Wider context from the report

“1. Inadequate review and incident investigation following a death Following Mr Lyalyushko’s death, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust completed an SI Review by way of case note review. Following evidence which considered the content of that review, the Trust stated that the review was ‘insufficient in its current form and the scope should be broadened to include the concerns raised (during the inquest hearing).’ The Trust said its Patient Safety Investigation Lead would undertake a new SI Review by 26 April 2024 (6 weeks). I identified a number of deficiencies with the initial SI Review which had been undertaken in respect of Mr Lyalyushko: it did not identify that a request from Mr Lyalyushko’s GP in November 2022 for involvement of its service with Mr Lyalyushko had not been actioned; it incorrectly identified areas where improvements were required as areas of good practice; and it did not involve any level of consultation with Mr Lyalyushko’s family to consider whether there were any areas of concern they had which might direct elements of the review. If there is insufficient review and learning from a death that, in my judgment, adds to the likelihood of future deaths occurring in similar circumstances. I am not reassured that necessary actions to address the serious issue identified i.e. inadequate initial review and incident investigation following a death, are yet in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review; Inadequate safety incident investigations; 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

Insufficient learning and corrective action following deaths

Wider context from the report

“1. Inadequate review and incident investigation following a death Following Mr Lyalyushko’s death, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust completed an SI Review by way of case note review. Following evidence which considered the content of that review, the Trust stated that the review was ‘insufficient in its current form and the scope should be broadened to include the concerns raised (during the inquest hearing).’ The Trust said its Patient Safety Investigation Lead would undertake a new SI Review by 26 April 2024 (6 weeks). I identified a number of deficiencies with the initial SI Review which had been undertaken in respect of Mr Lyalyushko: it did not identify that a request from Mr Lyalyushko’s GP in November 2022 for involvement of its service with Mr Lyalyushko had not been actioned; it incorrectly identified areas where improvements were required as areas of good practice; and it did not involve any level of consultation with Mr Lyalyushko’s family to consider whether there were any areas of concern they had which might direct elements of the review. If there is insufficient review and learning from a death that, in my judgment, adds to the likelihood of future deaths occurring in similar circumstances. I am not reassured that necessary actions to address the serious issue identified i.e. inadequate initial review and incident investigation following a death, are yet in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review; 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

Inaccurate identification of required improvements as good practice in post-death incident reviews

Wider context from the report

“1. Inadequate review and incident investigation following a death Following Mr Lyalyushko’s death, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust completed an SI Review by way of case note review. Following evidence which considered the content of that review, the Trust stated that the review was ‘insufficient in its current form and the scope should be broadened to include the concerns raised (during the inquest hearing).’ The Trust said its Patient Safety Investigation Lead would undertake a new SI Review by 26 April 2024 (6 weeks). I identified a number of deficiencies with the initial SI Review which had been undertaken in respect of Mr Lyalyushko: it did not identify that a request from Mr Lyalyushko’s GP in November 2022 for involvement of its service with Mr Lyalyushko had not been actioned; it incorrectly identified areas where improvements were required as areas of good practice; and it did not involve any level of consultation with Mr Lyalyushko’s family to consider whether there were any areas of concern they had which might direct elements of the review. If there is insufficient review and learning from a death that, in my judgment, adds to the likelihood of future deaths occurring in similar circumstances. I am not reassured that necessary actions to address the serious issue identified i.e. inadequate initial review and incident investigation following a death, are yet in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; 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

Failure to consult families about concerns that could direct post-death incident reviews

Wider context from the report

“1. Inadequate review and incident investigation following a death Following Mr Lyalyushko’s death, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust completed an SI Review by way of case note review. Following evidence which considered the content of that review, the Trust stated that the review was ‘insufficient in its current form and the scope should be broadened to include the concerns raised (during the inquest hearing).’ The Trust said its Patient Safety Investigation Lead would undertake a new SI Review by 26 April 2024 (6 weeks). I identified a number of deficiencies with the initial SI Review which had been undertaken in respect of Mr Lyalyushko: it did not identify that a request from Mr Lyalyushko’s GP in November 2022 for involvement of its service with Mr Lyalyushko had not been actioned; it incorrectly identified areas where improvements were required as areas of good practice; and it did not involve any level of consultation with Mr Lyalyushko’s family to consider whether there were any areas of concern they had which might direct elements of the review. If there is insufficient review and learning from a death that, in my judgment, adds to the likelihood of future deaths occurring in similar circumstances. I am not reassured that necessary actions to address the serious issue identified i.e. inadequate initial review and incident investigation following a death, are yet in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management 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

Share the completed review addendum with the coroner and the deceased’s family.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was subsequently agreed at the inquest that a further review would be undertaken and addendum to the report added to take into account this information that was not known at the time of the original CNR, as well as the additional points raised within the findings and conclusion document provided to the Trust. This is being undertaken and nearing completion. We will share this once completed with you and the family of Alexander, who have been involved in the onward investigation process. Once completed we will be better sighted to understand the wider lessons learnt and actions required to mitigate future occurrence and ensure the correct oversight is deployed.”

Source location

Response from Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS FT
Page 2 · response
Published 13 August 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

Complete the further review and addendum to incorporate newly identified information and issues from the inquest findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“record and therefore unavailable to the author of the CNR. This information became known about in January 2024 and agreed that this would be dealt with via a statement from the relevant team leader. This statement was to confirm that this referral was not available or known to the author of the CNR, confirm what had occurred, confirm what should have happened according to procedure, and what had since been put in place to reduce risk of recurrence.”

Source location

Response from Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS FT
Page 2 · response
Published 13 August 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

    Transition to the new Patient Safety Improvement Framework while working with HM Coroners to support a smooth transition meeting coronial enquiry needs.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 August 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

Transition to the new Patient Safety Improvement Framework while working with HM Coroners to support a smooth transition meeting coronial enquiry needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Moving forward, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust are transitioning to the new Patient Safety Improvement Framework. As this transition progresses, the way in which we approach the review of care for deaths likely to be subject to inquest will change and we are working with HM Coroners to ensure that this transition is smooth and meets the needs of the Coroneral enquiry.”

Source location

Response from Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS FT
Page 2 · response
Published 13 August 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026