PFD report

Alison Jean Shirley Jeanes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 7 Oct 2020•Manchester South

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
4

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 manage differences between haematology and neurosurgical recommendations
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-specialty communication for complex patient care
  2. Lack of a system to fast track CT scans for patients on warfarin with suspected head injury
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuriesPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely access to clinically indicated CT scanning
  3. Delays in obtaining and chasing up specialist neurosurgical input
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of neurosurgical referral systems to provide timely specialist advice
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

    Embed the Clinical Decision Support Tool in the Emergency Department Electronic Patient Record to guide adult head injury management and CT requirements.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2020.
  2. Action

    Use the updated Emergency Department adult head injury pathway to guide assessment, CT scanning, neurosurgical referral and clinical documentation.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2020.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Salford Royal’s neurosurgical team provided advice on the same day, contrary to the apparent inquest conclusion that advice took 24 hours.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation 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

Failure to manage differences between haematology and neurosurgical recommendations

Wider context from the report

“3. The inquest heard that haematology advice on the day of admission was to reduce her INR. This advice was reconfirmed by the neuro surgeons the following day. There were differences in the recommendations and it was not entirely clear how that difference was being managed. In any event despite repeated attempts with Vitamin K Mrs Jeanes INR remained above the target. Further advice from the haematologist was not sought until 26th March some 9 days after her admission. It was unclear why that delay had occurred as the notes suggested it had been recognised that advice should have been sought previously but this had not been followed up. There was no evidence before the inquest of what system was in place or who would take responsibility for follow up in such a situation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-specialty communication for complex patient care.

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 a system to fast track CT scans for patients on warfarin with suspected head injury

Wider context from the report

“2. Mrs Jeanes was brought into hospital by ambulance at the direction of a GP who recognised that she had a suspected head injury and was on warfarin. The GP recognised that the NICE guidance suggests there is an 8 hour window for patients on warfarin with a suspected head injury. Her fall had been at 23.58 on 16th March. The inquest heard that she was triaged but her CT scan was not expedited and was not reported on until 11.45 almost 12 hours after the fall. There was no evidence of a system that would fast track such cases for a CT scan. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuries; Failure to provide timely access to clinically indicated CT scanning.

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

Delays in obtaining and chasing up specialist neurosurgical input

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest heard that whilst contact was made with the Neurosurgical team at Salford Royal Hospital on the day of her admission there was no conversation with a Doctor from that team until the day after her admission. As a result there was no expert neuro input into her care for 24 hours. There was no evidence that there was any attempt to chase up contact earlier. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of neurosurgical referral systems to provide timely specialist advice.

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 obtain and follow up further haematology advice when INR remains above target

Wider context from the report

“3. The inquest heard that haematology advice on the day of admission was to reduce her INR. This advice was reconfirmed by the neuro surgeons the following day. There were differences in the recommendations and it was not entirely clear how that difference was being managed. In any event despite repeated attempts with Vitamin K Mrs Jeanes INR remained above the target. Further advice from the haematologist was not sought until 26th March some 9 days after her admission. It was unclear why that delay had occurred as the notes suggested it had been recognised that advice should have been sought previously but this had not been followed up. There was no evidence before the inquest of what system was in place or who would take responsibility for follow up in such a situation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to obtain timely specialist clinical advice when local expertise is insufficient; Unreliable contact arrangements for urgent clinical advice.

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

Embed the Clinical Decision Support Tool in the Emergency Department Electronic Patient Record to guide adult head injury management and CT requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I also enclose the “Clinical Decision Support Tool”, which contains a user friendly flow chart for use when assessing and treating adult patients presenting with head injuries, which covers the requirements around CT head scans being undertaken according to the patient’s risk category, as well as the circumstances in which advice should be sought from Salford Royal Hospital’s Neurosurgery team based on abnormality on the imaging. This tool is embedded within the Electronic Patient Record system used by clinicians in the Emergency Department as decision support software.”

Source location

2020-0200-Response-from-Manchester-University-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 6 · response
Published 1 December 2020

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

Use the updated Emergency Department adult head injury pathway to guide assessment, CT scanning, neurosurgical referral and clinical documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Emergency Department Head Injury Pathway I enclose the recently updated (in August 2020) local head injury pathway in place at Wythenshawe Hospital’s Emergency Department, for use by clinical staff when assessing adult patients for a head injury and for documenting the assessment in the patient’s clinical notes. This local pathway is in line with NICE guidance and serves to guide clinicians as to the steps to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive assessment of patients presenting with a head injury. The local pathway specifically covers the indications for a CT scan and/or to contact the Neurosurgical specialists for advice and provides the template for documenting the outcome of CT scan/Neurosurgical advice in the clinical notes.”

Source location

2020-0200-Response-from-Manchester-University-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 6 · response
Published 1 December 2020

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

Salford Royal’s neurosurgical team provided advice on the same day, contrary to the apparent inquest conclusion that advice took 24 hours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Neurosurgical Advice from Salford Royal Hospital Mrs Jeanes was referred to the Neurosurgical Coordinator on 17th March 2020, and the referral was followed up the next day. We have liaised with colleagues at Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust; ████████, Chief Officer and Medical Director, and ████████, Clinical Director for Surgical Neurosciences. Having looked into this further, it appears that the standard of the record-keeping at Wythenshawe Hospital may have been such that when you heard evidence at the Inquest this gave rise to an incorrect assumption that the Neurosurgical team took a day to provide a plan, however from review of the records held by Salford Royal Hospital colleagues, it appears advice was in fact provided by Salford Royal Hospital Neurosurgical colleagues the same day that this was requested.”

Source location

2020-0200-Response-from-Manchester-University-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 1 December 2020

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 24-hour haematology support, anticoagulation guidance and ward-team responsibilities provide arrangements for INR management and follow-up.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Advice from Haematology The requirement is that the on-call or ward team should contact the Haematology specialists at Wythenshawe Hospital should they require advice. Patients should then be referred back to the Anticoagulant Clinic on discharge from hospital for follow-up care. The Trust has a Haematology service which is on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Haematology team will advise on appropriate reversal of anticoagulation. It is the ward team’s responsibility to follow-up and action such advice, and to refer back to Haematology should further specialist input be needed in the course of the patient’s admission.”

Source location

2020-0200-Response-from-Manchester-University-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 8 · response
Published 1 December 2020

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 local head injury pathway and electronic decision-support tool provide existing guidance for timely CT scanning and neurosurgical referral.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Emergency Department Head Injury Pathway I enclose the recently updated (in August 2020) local head injury pathway in place at Wythenshawe Hospital’s Emergency Department, for use by clinical staff when assessing adult patients for a head injury and for documenting the assessment in the patient’s clinical notes. This local pathway is in line with NICE guidance and serves to guide clinicians as to the steps to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive assessment of patients presenting with a head injury. The local pathway specifically covers the indications for a CT scan and/or to contact the Neurosurgical specialists for advice and provides the template for documenting the outcome of CT scan/Neurosurgical advice in the clinical notes.”

Source location

2020-0200-Response-from-Manchester-University-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 6 · response
Published 1 December 2020

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 CT scan reporting delay was one hour beyond target but did not appear to have significantly contributed to the adverse outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After the request was submitted by the ward at 08.32 hours, Mrs Jeanes attended Radiology and the scan was performed at 09.16 hours, i.e. within 44 minutes. This is within the required Key Performance Indicator (KPI)/target for imaging of this nature, which requires that for patients in the Emergency Department with a head injury, the required turnaround time from the scan being requested to being performed should be within an hour. The time from the scan being undertaken to a verified CT scan report being provided was two hours, with the report being verified at 11.16 hours, which the Radiology team accepts is one hour outside of the required KPI/target, according to which it is expected that CT scans of this nature requested by the Emergency Department are to be reported within an hour of the examination.”

Source location

2020-0200-Response-from-Manchester-University-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 6 · response
Published 1 December 2020

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.2

  1. 1

    Finalise the Trust-wide Division of Imaging Reporting Strategy to establish harmonised reporting pathways and urgent communication of critical findings.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 December 2020.
  2. 2

    Issue reminders requiring Trust staff attending Coroner’s Court to prepare fully and know the relevant clinical records.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2020.

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

Finalise the Trust-wide Division of Imaging Reporting Strategy to establish harmonised reporting pathways and urgent communication of critical findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Radiology Reporting Strategy A local Trust policy, “Division of Imaging Reporting Strategy”, currently in draft, is in the process of being finalised, under the leadership of the Clinical and Scientific Services Managed Clinical Service. This policy will be applicable to all staff involved in diagnostic imaging examinations. This will be the first Division of Imaging Reporting Strategy for the Trust, the purpose of which is to set out the priorities, principles and ambitions for providing high-quality reports for service users over the next five years and, therefore, delivering the Division’s vision and objectives. This Reporting Strategy is the plan through which the Division of Imaging will focus on the quality and safety of reporting structures.”

Source location

2020-0200-Response-from-Manchester-University-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2020

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

Issue reminders requiring Trust staff attending Coroner’s Court to prepare fully and know the relevant clinical records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Trust Staff Preparation for Inquest In the event that the oral witness evidence that you heard at Inquest did not provide you with the full information required around these points, I confirm that in September 2020 I issued, via the site Medical Directors for hospitals and Managed Clinical Services across the Trust, a reminder about the professional expectations of Trust staff when attending your Coroner’s Court to give evidence in respect of Trust patients. With this, I reminded colleagues about the General Medical Council’s guidance on “Acting as a witness in legal proceedings”, covering the expectations of doctors when giving evidence in a professional capacity.”

Source location

2020-0200-Response-from-Manchester-University-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 1 December 2020

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