PFD report

Edward Joyce · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 May 2018•Inner South 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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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. Failure to provide advice to return to hospital after reported high temperature following a burn
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of burnsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety-netting advice for patients and carersPart of recurring concern: Telephone triage that is unreliable and can delay necessary care
  2. Failure to trigger urgent hospital referral for high temperature following a burn
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of burns
  3. Failure to record reported high temperature in telephone notes
    Part of recurring concern: Telephone triage that is unreliable and can delay necessary carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable capture and onward use of telephone helpline information
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

    Alert the Paediatric Burns Network to the advice so that improvements can be made more widely.

    Stated by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 July 2018.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The existing national leaflet already provides nationally accepted burns advice, correct warning signs, and appropriate instructions for parents seeking further care.

    Stated by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation TrustExisting 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 provide advice to return to hospital after reported high temperature following a burn

Wider context from the report

“The evidence at the inquest was that a temperature reading above 38°C following a burn to a young child is highly concerning, and could be an early sign of septicaemia and toxic shock syndrome. (1) The temperature reading of 38.9°C at the GP did not trigger an urgent referral to hospital. (2) Eddie’s mother was clear that she reported this temperature reading to the nurse at Chelsea & Westminster when she telephoned soon after the GP appointment. This reading is not recorded in the telephone note and the parents were not told to bring Eddie back to hospital. (3) The evidence was that scalding injuries amongst children are very common but that toxic shock syndrome is very rare. In their evidence the hospital witnesses helpfully considered whether the information leaflet could be reviewed so as to assist other health professionals who may be less aware of the potential significance of high temperature following a burn and availability of a 24 hour telephone advice from the burns unit. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of burns; Inadequate safety-netting advice for patients and carers; Telephone triage that is unreliable and can delay necessary care.

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 trigger urgent hospital referral for high temperature following a burn

Wider context from the report

“The evidence at the inquest was that a temperature reading above 38°C following a burn to a young child is highly concerning, and could be an early sign of septicaemia and toxic shock syndrome. (1) The temperature reading of 38.9°C at the GP did not trigger an urgent referral to hospital. (2) Eddie’s mother was clear that she reported this temperature reading to the nurse at Chelsea & Westminster when she telephoned soon after the GP appointment. This reading is not recorded in the telephone note and the parents were not told to bring Eddie back to hospital. (3) The evidence was that scalding injuries amongst children are very common but that toxic shock syndrome is very rare. In their evidence the hospital witnesses helpfully considered whether the information leaflet could be reviewed so as to assist other health professionals who may be less aware of the potential significance of high temperature following a burn and availability of a 24 hour telephone advice from the burns unit. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of burns.

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 record reported high temperature in telephone notes

Wider context from the report

“The evidence at the inquest was that a temperature reading above 38°C following a burn to a young child is highly concerning, and could be an early sign of septicaemia and toxic shock syndrome. (1) The temperature reading of 38.9°C at the GP did not trigger an urgent referral to hospital. (2) Eddie’s mother was clear that she reported this temperature reading to the nurse at Chelsea & Westminster when she telephoned soon after the GP appointment. This reading is not recorded in the telephone note and the parents were not told to bring Eddie back to hospital. (3) The evidence was that scalding injuries amongst children are very common but that toxic shock syndrome is very rare. In their evidence the hospital witnesses helpfully considered whether the information leaflet could be reviewed so as to assist other health professionals who may be less aware of the potential significance of high temperature following a burn and availability of a 24 hour telephone advice from the burns unit. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Telephone triage that is unreliable and can delay necessary care; Unreliable capture and onward use of telephone helpline information.

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

Alert the Paediatric Burns Network to the advice so that improvements can be made more widely.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the national information leaflet, it does set out the warning signs to look out for in a child who has sustained a burns injury and is developing sepsis or Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS); I can confirm that the existing leaflet contains nationally accepted advice in attending to burns injuries in children. It also contains the correct symptoms (red flags) and the correct advice as to what parents ought to do if concerned, including where to seek further treatment and advice. We have also alerted the Paediatric Burns Network to your advice so that any improvements can be made more widely. We would also like to reassure you that our burns unit can already be contacted by telephone 24 hours every day.”

Source location

2018-0142-Response-by-Chelsea-and-Westminster-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2018

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

The existing national leaflet already provides nationally accepted burns advice, correct warning signs, and appropriate instructions for parents seeking further care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the national information leaflet, it does set out the warning signs to look out for in a child who has sustained a burns injury and is developing sepsis or Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS); I can confirm that the existing leaflet contains nationally accepted advice in attending to burns injuries in children. It also contains the correct symptoms (red flags) and the correct advice as to what parents ought to do if concerned, including where to seek further treatment and advice. We have also alerted the Paediatric Burns Network to your advice so that any improvements can be made more widely. We would also like to reassure you that our burns unit can already be contacted by telephone 24 hours every day.”

Source location

2018-0142-Response-by-Chelsea-and-Westminster-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2018

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

There was no suggestion that a temperature spike was mentioned during the telephone call and then not recorded or acted upon.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is the Trust’s understanding that the evidence from Nurse ████████ explained the action that would have been taken if a spike in temperature was mentioned during the relevant telephone call but there was no suggestion that a spike in temperature was mentioned and not recorded / acted on.”

Source location

2018-0142-Response-by-Chelsea-and-Westminster-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2018

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

The burns unit can already be contacted by telephone 24 hours a day, every day.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the national information leaflet, it does set out the warning signs to look out for in a child who has sustained a burns injury and is developing sepsis or Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS); I can confirm that the existing leaflet contains nationally accepted advice in attending to burns injuries in children. It also contains the correct symptoms (red flags) and the correct advice as to what parents ought to do if concerned, including where to seek further treatment and advice. We have also alerted the Paediatric Burns Network to your advice so that any improvements can be made more widely. We would also like to reassure you that our burns unit can already be contacted by telephone 24 hours every day.”

Source location

2018-0142-Response-by-Chelsea-and-Westminster-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2018

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

  1. 1

    The evidence indicated that Toxic Shock Syndrome was common among children on the ward, rather than very rare.

    Stated by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

The evidence indicated that Toxic Shock Syndrome was common among children on the ward, rather than very rare.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to clarify on behalf of the Trust the PFD notice states at concern (3) that the ‘evidence was that scalding injuries amongst children are very common but that Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS) is very rare’ however we respectfully submit that ████████ was clear in her evidence that TSS is very common with approximately one child per day on the ward being monitored for suspected TSS.”

Source location

2018-0142-Response-by-Chelsea-and-Westminster-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2018

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