PFD report

Ivy May DIXON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Apr 2025•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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. Failure to undertake CPR during cardiac arrest from a potentially reversible cause
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest
  2. Lack of healthcare assistant and nursing staff training and clinical skills or knowledge for emergency care
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate staff competence to provide first aidPart of recurring concern: Inadequate staff training for emergency responsePart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency response arrangements in care homes
  3. Failure to provide consistent and accurate communication about patient care
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services
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.3

  1. Action

    Continue providing nursing and care staff with up-to-date CPR and emergency-situation training.

    Stated by Acorn Lodge Care CentreStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 April 2025.
  2. Action

    Use the incident as a learning opportunity to improve staff communication, ensuring information given to visiting professionals is accurate and understood.

    Stated by Acorn Lodge Care CentreStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 April 2025.
  3. Action

    Purchase Lifevac devices and train relevant staff in their use, alongside providing choking-response sessions.

    Stated by Acorn Lodge Care CentreStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 April 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Care home staff were already confident and competent to communicate with professionals during emergencies, limiting the need for further competency measures.

    Stated by Acorn Lodge Care CentreDisputes 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 undertake CPR during cardiac arrest from a potentially reversible cause

Wider context from the report

“2. While the patient was breathing and conscious at the time of the 999 call, when LAS staff attended six minutes later, the patient was not conscious, not breathing, had no palpable pulse, and was critically unwell in confirmed cardiac arrest. However, despite this, staff from the Care Home were not undertaking CPR. The DNACPR would not have applied in this case, because choking is a potentially reversible cause of cardiac arrest, which the Care Home’s manager confirmed in her evidence. This raises the concern that staff (healthcare assistants and nursing staff) at the Care Home may have previously unidentified training needs and/or lacked the clinical skills/knowledge to provide emergency care. ”

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

Lack of healthcare assistant and nursing staff training and clinical skills or knowledge for emergency care

Wider context from the report

“2. While the patient was breathing and conscious at the time of the 999 call, when LAS staff attended six minutes later, the patient was not conscious, not breathing, had no palpable pulse, and was critically unwell in confirmed cardiac arrest. However, despite this, staff from the Care Home were not undertaking CPR. The DNACPR would not have applied in this case, because choking is a potentially reversible cause of cardiac arrest, which the Care Home’s manager confirmed in her evidence. This raises the concern that staff (healthcare assistants and nursing staff) at the Care Home may have previously unidentified training needs and/or lacked the clinical skills/knowledge to provide emergency care. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid; Inadequate staff training for emergency response; Unreliable emergency response arrangements in care homes.

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 consistent and accurate communication about patient care

Wider context from the report

“1. The healthcare assistant who had been with Mrs Dixon on the evening of 6 October 2024, clearly referred in her statement to the patient having been fed. Shortly thereafter the healthcare assistant heard “a noise” coming from the patient’s chest and so she called for the assistance of a nearby nurse. Two nurses attended and made the reasonable assumption that the patient was choking. Treatment was administered and a set of vital observations showed that the patient’s oxygen saturations were 87%. On this basis, nursing staff called for an emergency ambulance: the London Ambulance Service (LAS) call handler was told that the patient was “choking” albeit she was breathing and conscious at that time. Despite this, once LAS staff arrived at Acorn Lodge Care Home, the Care Home staff told paramedics that they had been attempting to feed the patient, but the patient started to gasp before any food was given to her, meaning they were unable to feed her. This raises concerns about the communication and integrity of the staff members at the Care Home in their provision of care to the patient. I did not receive any reassurance that this concern has been addressed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services.

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

Continue providing nursing and care staff with up-to-date CPR and emergency-situation training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to the training, skills and competence of our staff, our nurses undertake CPR training every 12 months and the staff on duty on that day were up to date with their training. However, given the tight time line of events, there had only been 6 minutes between the 999 call being made and the attendance of the LAS. As previously mentioned, our staff are of the belief that at the time of arrival of LAS, Mrs Dixon was still alive but deteriorating and care was taken over by the LAS at 18.21 hrs, only 6 minutes after the 999 call being made.”

Source location

Response from Lukka Care Homes Limited
Page 5 · response
Published 17 April 2025

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 incident as a learning opportunity to improve staff communication, ensuring information given to visiting professionals is accurate and understood.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will use this unfortunate incident to raise learning and development opportunities for our staff however feel strongly that our staff are already confident and competent to deal with professionals from all backgrounds including paramedics in an emergency situation.”

Source location

Response from Lukka Care Homes Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 17 April 2025

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

Purchase Lifevac devices and train relevant staff in their use, alongside providing choking-response sessions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“improving training with our staff and providing the tools to do so.”

Source location

Response from Lukka Care Homes Limited
Page 6 · response
Published 17 April 2025

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

Care home staff were already confident and competent to communicate with professionals during emergencies, limiting the need for further competency measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will use this unfortunate incident to raise learning and development opportunities for our staff however feel strongly that our staff are already confident and competent to deal with professionals from all backgrounds including paramedics in an emergency situation.”

Source location

Response from Lukka Care Homes Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 17 April 2025

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

    Support staff to continue understanding the importance of robust and timely documentation.

    Stated by Acorn Lodge Care CentreStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 April 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Correct information about choking would not have changed the clinician’s intervention or the outcome because no airway obstruction was visible.

    Stated by Acorn Lodge Care CentreDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Support staff to continue understanding the importance of robust and timely documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Staff will be supported to continue to understand the importance of robust and timely documentation.”

Source location

Response from Lukka Care Homes Limited
Page 7 · response
Published 17 April 2025

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

Correct information about choking would not have changed the clinician’s intervention or the outcome because no airway obstruction was visible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“22. In consideration of the information provided on the 999 call, the caller advised that Ms Dixon had started choking following being fed, that her oxygen saturations were deteriorating, they had used suction, she had shallow breathing and they had applied oxygen. On review, it is not clear why the information provided to the 999 call handler differed to the information provided to the clinician on scene. Had the clinician been informed of the circumstances outlined on the 999 call, it is not unreasonable to consider that the clinician would have considered the cause of the arrest to be choking but on balance I am not of the view that with no obvious obstruction of the airway this would have changed either any intervention or outcome.”

Source location

Response from Lukka Care Homes Limited
Page 23 · response
Published 17 April 2025

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