PFD report

Tamara HOLBOLL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Apr 2015•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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised1

  1. Lack of precise specification of communication requirements
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.1

  1. Action

    Amend the action-plan template and author guidance to require specific, concrete actions linked to each recommendation.

    Stated by North London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 April 2015.

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 precise specification of communication requirements

Wider context from the report

“It seemed to me from the evidence I heard that, when a need for good communication (for example between clinician and bed manager) has been identified, there has been a lack of precision in your trust about exactly what that means and how it needs to be actioned. Rather than simply talking about the need for better communication, it is necessary to identify that information A must be delivered on every occasion, by person B, at time C, and using method D. Without this level of detail, staff are left with a vague concept and the communication is unlikely to achieve the desired result. I appreciate that this does not give you much in the way of specifics to work on, but your organisation has already identified these. What I hope to do is to share with you what I perceive to be a recurring theme in your organisation, that has been particularly highlighted by Ms Holboll’s death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Amend the action-plan template and author guidance to require specific, concrete actions linked to each recommendation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. We have amended the action plan template and revised our guidance to authors writing recommendations and action plans.”

Source location

2015-0171-Response-by-Camden-and-Islington-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 April 2015

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

    Review and improve Serious Incident processes to strengthen learning from incidents.

    Stated by North London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 April 2015.

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 improve Serious Incident processes to strengthen learning from incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I write in response to the Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Deaths report sent by you on 27 April 2015. You raised in your letter a concern about the lack of precision in our trust with respect to recommendations arising from Serious Incidents investigations on the need for good communication. Thank you for your very helpful comment and example of the clear format for the wording of actions to address the need for better communication. We have considered your recommendation carefully and we agree with you that we should improve the way we formulate our actions to ensure they achieve the desired result. We have an ongoing plan in place to review and improve our Serious Incidents processes; we are committed in particular to improving our ability to learn from incidents.”

Source location

2015-0171-Response-by-Camden-and-Islington-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 27 April 2015

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