PFD report

Donald Gore · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Jun 2022•Avon

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
12

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 raised2

  1. Failure to disclose incident investigations and related documents to the Coroner’s office
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable disclosure of relevant evidence in formal proceedings
  2. Inadequate investigation of incidents
    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.5

  1. Action

    Undertake a root cause analysis with detailed risk assessment to identify safety actions.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 September 2022.
  2. Action

    Review the new significant event analysis system at the practice board meeting after its further use in August.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 September 2022.
  3. Action

    Complete a second significant event analysis using the revised investigation system.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 September 2022.

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

  1. Position

    Significant event analysis broadly met CQC requirements; root cause analysis is not specifically required and is not generally used in general practice.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 disclose incident investigations and related documents to the Coroner’s office

Wider context from the report

“The evidence demonstrated that the General Practitioner to whom Mr Gore first presented with symptoms on 3.11.17 did not read the alert regarding the risk of Mycobacterium Chimaera infection contained in his GP records, entered in March 2017 further to a letter sent to the practice by the cardiac surgery department. The investigation in response to this is summarised in a document headed “Proforma for completion at SEA/adverse incident meeting” dated 14.1.19. My concerns are - 1. The investigation in response to this incident summarised in that document – a) Does not conform to the usual detail and format of such investigations (eg a Root Cause Analysis), and b) Appeared inadequate; (In addition the investigation and document, or even their existence, were not disclosed to the Coroner’s office despite three GP statements/reports from your practice being requested and provided in the preparation for the Inquest, only being revealed in the course of oral evidence from the GP during the course of the Inquest). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable disclosure of relevant evidence in formal proceedings.

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

Inadequate investigation of incidents

Wider context from the report

“The evidence demonstrated that the General Practitioner to whom Mr Gore first presented with symptoms on 3.11.17 did not read the alert regarding the risk of Mycobacterium Chimaera infection contained in his GP records, entered in March 2017 further to a letter sent to the practice by the cardiac surgery department. The investigation in response to this is summarised in a document headed “Proforma for completion at SEA/adverse incident meeting” dated 14.1.19. My concerns are - 1. The investigation in response to this incident summarised in that document – a) Does not conform to the usual detail and format of such investigations (eg a Root Cause Analysis), and b) Appeared inadequate; (In addition the investigation and document, or even their existence, were not disclosed to the Coroner’s office despite three GP statements/reports from your practice being requested and provided in the preparation for the Inquest, only being revealed in the course of oral evidence from the GP during the course of the Inquest). ”

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

Undertake a root cause analysis with detailed risk assessment to identify safety actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Undertaken a Root Cause Analysis – attached. This has included a detailed risk assessment showing how rare this infection is and has helped to identify actions for the surgery.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 3 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Review the new significant event analysis system at the practice board meeting after its further use in August.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. The surgery has used this new system for the repeat SEA conducted on this case on the 18th July 2022. Attached. We will continue to use it for a further SEA meeting planned in August, where other SEA issues are being discussed. The practice board will then review at its meeting in August to assess if it is fit for purpose.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 4 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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 a second significant event analysis using the revised investigation system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Additionally, the surgery has completed a second SEA process on the 18th July 2022 regarding this incident. This is attached and has identified the following:”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Appoint an independent external GP and appraiser to scrutinise incident records, investigation processes and significant event analyses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The surgery is fully committed to openness and promoting a learning and improving culture. We have carefully considered the benefits of external scrutiny to help us see beyond any “organisational blind spots” and have appointed an experienced objective external GP and GP Appraiser, who has never worked for the surgery and has knowledge of local systems.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 3 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Produce and use a new significant event analysis policy and documentation process for future investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Produced a new SEA policy and documentation process. CQC have been given a copy. We feel our new policy and documentation is robust and will result in a better investigation, including risk assessing, analysis, outcome, and written record.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 4 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Significant event analysis broadly met CQC requirements; root cause analysis is not specifically required and is not generally used in general practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. We have reviewed what our regulatory body- CQC- required in terms of investigation and managing incidents. This indicated that the main approach is SEA. GP mythbuster 3: Significant event analysis (SEA) – Care Quality Commission (cqc.org.uk) There is no specific mention of Root Cause Analysis on the website and this is not a technique which is generally used in general practice.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 3 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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.7

  1. 1

    Use EMIS pop-up messages for clinical warning alerts.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 September 2022.
  2. 2

    Communicate secondary-care warning letters directly to patients through text messages, telephone calls or letters.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 September 2022.
  3. 3

    Share learning from the incident with the wider Bristol primary care community through locality meetings and the DATIX system.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 September 2022.
  4. 4

    Review the received patient warning-letter list and provide feedback to the hospital cardiology unit.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 September 2022.
  5. 5

    Audit existing pop-up alerts and verify that they have been actioned appropriately.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 September 2022.
  6. 6

    Disseminate information about Mycobacterium chimaera infection to all practice GPs.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 September 2022.
  7. 7

    Develop and implement a standard operating procedure for recording warning alerts and retaining them indefinitely in active problems.

    Stated by Air Balloon SurgeryStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 September 2022.

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 EMIS pop-up messages for clinical warning alerts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The surgery has reviewed the SEA carried out on the 14th November 2019. At that SEA, it was identified that the warning letter had been coded in the medical notes, in part of the medical records called “active problems”. There was also a coded entry on the main consultation page. The structure of medical records is complex. The surgery uses Emis which is widely used in many GP practices. The key action identified at the SEA in 2019, was to use an additional place for these sorts of warning letters, which may make them less easy to miss. This additional location is a pop-up message facility on Emis, where free text messages can be recorded. It pops up a message on screen when someone goes into records and the user has to actively click to get beyond it to do anything on the medical records.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Communicate secondary-care warning letters directly to patients through text messages, telephone calls or letters.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.3 Ensure the patient is aware of any secondary care warning letters and do not rely on secondary care sending out to patients. We will also directly send out communications to patients to make sure they have received the hospital warning, using text messaging, phone calls or letters.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 3 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Share learning from the incident with the wider Bristol primary care community through locality meetings and the DATIX system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The surgery will undertake to share the learning from this incident to the wider Bristol Primary Care Community, via our Clinical Locality Monthly meeting, and also via the local DATIX system. DATIX is a Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, whole system platform for reporting issues and for improving care across systems. We will do this by the 29th July 2022.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 5 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Review the received patient warning-letter list and provide feedback to the hospital cardiology unit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The surgery has also emailed the Cardiology unit at University Bristol Hospital Trust, asking them for a complete list of all patients registered with this practice where they have sent other warnings about M Chimaera. This was requested on the 29th June 2022 and sent them a follow up e-mail on the 27th July requesting a progress report and asking when we might receive this information. This list has just been received and we are in the process of acting on it. We note that they appear to have changed their system of managing such warnings. It is no longer clear in the information they send to us if the patient has been informed, as they should have been by the hospital. We will review the whole list they have sent and feed back this and any other issues to them.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 3 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Audit existing pop-up alerts and verify that they have been actioned appropriately.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Since the Regulation 28 has been issued, the surgery has conducted an audit of all pop-up messages. This took place on Friday 2nd July 2022. This shows that the pop-up system instigated in November 2019, following the SEA, are being used. We have checked that the pop-up messages currently in place have been actioned appropriately. We accept however, that this system needs to be strengthened. We are at an advanced stage of drafting and implementing a SOP to detail exactly how these warning alerts will be recorded on medical records to standardise practice. We are guided by the literature regarding these infections. Our Root Cause Analysis identified that of the 49 cases identified in the UK, one case took 12 years for the infection to occur. The “Active problem” field includes a feature where the entry will move to another field called “Dormant Problems”.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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

Disseminate information about Mycobacterium chimaera infection to all practice GPs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. The surgery noted that the original warning letter sent by cardiology included web links to detailed information about Mycobacterium Chimaera. This detailed information has been sent to all GP’s at the surgery to disseminate knowledge of this infection. This took place on the 15th July 2022.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 3 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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 and implement a standard operating procedure for recording warning alerts and retaining them indefinitely in active problems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Since the Regulation 28 has been issued, the surgery has conducted an audit of all pop-up messages. This took place on Friday 2nd July 2022. This shows that the pop-up system instigated in November 2019, following the SEA, are being used. We have checked that the pop-up messages currently in place have been actioned appropriately. We accept however, that this system needs to be strengthened. We are at an advanced stage of drafting and implementing a SOP to detail exactly how these warning alerts will be recorded on medical records to standardise practice. We are guided by the literature regarding these infections. Our Root Cause Analysis identified that of the 49 cases identified in the UK, one case took 12 years for the infection to occur. The “Active problem” field includes a feature where the entry will move to another field called “Dormant Problems”.”

Source location

Response from Air Balloon Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 20 September 2022

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026