PFD report

Raymond Lee · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 May 2023•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

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 raised3

  1. Limited evidence on the risks of stenting oesophageal strictures
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate guidance for managing oesophageal strictures and transition to stenting
  2. Lack of national guidance and evidence-based best practice for treating oesophageal strictures
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate guidance for managing oesophageal strictures and transition to stenting
  3. Lack of evidence on the optimum number of dilatations and when to stop dilatation and consider stenting
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate guidance for managing oesophageal strictures and transition to stenting
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

    Further consider concerns about contraindications for stenting and whether NICE advice should be strengthened.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 May 2023.
  2. Action

    Develop national, evidence-based advice or guidance for managing post-radiotherapy oesophageal stenting cases with AUGIS and NICE.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 May 2023.

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

  1. Position

    GM Cancer Alliance, through its Oesophago-Gastric Pathway Board, is responsible for developing the stenting pathway and completing MDT Reform actions.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Limited evidence on the risks of stenting oesophageal strictures

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that oesophageal strictures are a recognised complication of radiotherapy for oesophageal cancers. The implications of them are significant for patients as they can lead to aspiration and as well as significantly impact quality of life. At this time there is only very limited national guidance on how to best treat patients with strictures and limited evidence on which to develop best practice. The evidence given was that careful dilatation by an experienced practitioner was the best approach initially. However, dilatation particularly repeated dilatation carried risk of perforation and needed to be seen as something that could not be continued indefinitely. However, there was limited evidence on what the optimum number of dilatations were and/or when to stop and move to consider stenting. The inquest heard that stenting of patients in these circumstances has a limited body of evidence regarding the risk. The inquest highlighted that perforation may be a risk in some cases where a stent is used and that needed to be factored into any decision to use a stent. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate guidance for managing oesophageal strictures and transition to stenting.

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 national guidance and evidence-based best practice for treating oesophageal strictures

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that oesophageal strictures are a recognised complication of radiotherapy for oesophageal cancers. The implications of them are significant for patients as they can lead to aspiration and as well as significantly impact quality of life. At this time there is only very limited national guidance on how to best treat patients with strictures and limited evidence on which to develop best practice. The evidence given was that careful dilatation by an experienced practitioner was the best approach initially. However, dilatation particularly repeated dilatation carried risk of perforation and needed to be seen as something that could not be continued indefinitely. However, there was limited evidence on what the optimum number of dilatations were and/or when to stop and move to consider stenting. The inquest heard that stenting of patients in these circumstances has a limited body of evidence regarding the risk. The inquest highlighted that perforation may be a risk in some cases where a stent is used and that needed to be factored into any decision to use a stent. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate guidance for managing oesophageal strictures and transition to stenting.

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 evidence on the optimum number of dilatations and when to stop dilatation and consider stenting

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that oesophageal strictures are a recognised complication of radiotherapy for oesophageal cancers. The implications of them are significant for patients as they can lead to aspiration and as well as significantly impact quality of life. At this time there is only very limited national guidance on how to best treat patients with strictures and limited evidence on which to develop best practice. The evidence given was that careful dilatation by an experienced practitioner was the best approach initially. However, dilatation particularly repeated dilatation carried risk of perforation and needed to be seen as something that could not be continued indefinitely. However, there was limited evidence on what the optimum number of dilatations were and/or when to stop and move to consider stenting. The inquest heard that stenting of patients in these circumstances has a limited body of evidence regarding the risk. The inquest highlighted that perforation may be a risk in some cases where a stent is used and that needed to be factored into any decision to use a stent. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate guidance for managing oesophageal strictures and transition to stenting.

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

Further consider concerns about contraindications for stenting and whether NICE advice should be strengthened.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will log your report and consider further your concerns regarding contraindications for stenting and if we need to strengthen our advice.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 2 · response
Published 17 May 2023

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 national, evidence-based advice or guidance for managing post-radiotherapy oesophageal stenting cases with AUGIS and NICE.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To support a response, I sought the opinion from our clinical advisor within the Cancer Programme of Care at NHS England and they have also spoken to the relevant professional association lead from the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS). In terms of learning from this case, and from other stenting cases previously reviewed, it is clear that these types of cases are clinically difficult to manage; the NICE guidance is not comprehensive and there does not appear to be a guidelines in place covering these sorts of circumstances (i.e., post radiotherapy). We acknowledge this is something that needs to be addressed and we are actively discussing how best to do this in partnership with AUGIS and NICE.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 17 May 2023

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

GM Cancer Alliance, through its Oesophago-Gastric Pathway Board, is responsible for developing the stenting pathway and completing MDT Reform actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have also received an update from Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board (ICB) regarding this matter. They have advised that the Greater Manchester (GM) Cancer Alliance will be tasking the Oesophago-Gastric (OG) Pathway Board with developing a clear pathway for the management of oesophageal stenting. The Alliance will also be ensuring that outstanding elements of the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) Reform”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 17 May 2023

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

    Log the coroner’s report for consideration.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 May 2023.
  2. 2

    Discuss Preventable Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 May 2023.

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

Log the coroner’s report for consideration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will log your report and consider further your concerns regarding contraindications for stenting and if we need to strengthen our advice.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 2 · response
Published 17 May 2023

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 Preventable Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and this helps us pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 17 May 2023

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