PFD report

Roy WALKLET · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 May 2023•Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised2

  1. Failure to enable gastroscopy for stable patients with gastric bleeding before hospital bed allocation
  2. Failure to ensure consultant awareness and timely review of allocated patients remaining in Accident and Emergency
    Part of recurring concern: Delays in consultant review of patients
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 enable gastroscopy for stable patients with gastric bleeding before hospital bed allocation

Wider context from the report

“On 7th April 2022 the deceased Mr Walklet attended the Accident and Emergency Department of the Royal Stoke University Hospital suffering from a bleeding duodenal ulcer. A consultant gastroenterologist decided that a gastroscopy should be undertaken that same day to identify and treat the cause of the bleeding. The gastroenterologist felt that it was important for the gastroscopy to be undertaken without delay because there was potential for Mr Walklet to suffer another big bleed, which could be fatal. No gastroscopy took place on 7th April 2022. During the inquest I was told that this was because Mr Walklet had not been allocated a bed in the hospital and a gastroscopy would not take place until a bed had been allocated to him because a patient cannot be returned to the Accident and Emergency Department from the gastroscopy department. A gastroscopy eventually took place on 8th April 2022. Mr Walklet later suffered further bleeding from the duodenal ulcer which resulted in his death. The delay in undertaking the gastroscopy was not causative of Mr Walklet’s death, but I was told that systems and procedures in the Hospital remain as they were at the time of Mr Walklet’s death – i.e. that a stable patient with a gastric bleed who was being cared for in the Accident and Emergency Department could not have a gastroscopy until a bed for them became available in the Hospital. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 ensure consultant awareness and timely review of allocated patients remaining in Accident and Emergency

Wider context from the report

“I was further told during the inquest that Mr Walklet was allocated a bed in the Hospital either late on 7th April 2022 or early on 8th April 2022 and that his care was allocated to a consultant gastroenterologist ███████ who should have seen Mr Walklet during his morning ward round but did not do so. ███████ told me that he was not aware that Mr Walklet had been allocated to his list of patients. Mr Walklet’s family believe that this error occurred because, whilst Mr Walklet had been allocated a bed on the ward, he actually remained in the Accident and Emergency department. As a result, Mr Walklet’s condition and care was not reviewed by the consultant gastroenterologist until later that day. At the time Mr Walklet was still suffering from a bleeding duodenal ulcer from which he was to die later the same day. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in consultant review of patients.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.