PFD report

James Edward Mansfield · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Oct 2013•Cambridgeshire (South and West)

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
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 raised3

  1. Delays in receiving and reviewing hospital discharge summaries
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable receipt, prioritisation and clinical review of hospital discharge summaries
  2. Failure to arrange clinical assessment after a telephone report of pain in a high-risk patient
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to conduct timely, appropriate clinical assessmentsPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide face-to-face clinical assessment when clinically indicated
  3. Lack of differentiation and prioritisation of serious-injury discharge summaries
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable receipt, prioritisation and clinical review of hospital discharge summaries
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

Delays in receiving and reviewing hospital discharge summaries

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Mansfield had an xray and was discharged from Addenbrookes Hospital on 25 February. You have arranged that the hospital post discharge letters to your surgery. This was not received until 28th February 2013 by which time Mrs Mansfield had called requesting stronger pain killers. The discharge summary was only reviewed by a doctor on 6 March. You stated that only if a patient was admitted to hospital would their discharge letter get prompt attention. There was no apparent method for differentiating between discharge summaries which involved serious injuries and those which did not. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge processes; Unreliable receipt, prioritisation and clinical review of hospital discharge summaries.

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 arrange clinical assessment after a telephone report of pain in a high-risk patient

Wider context from the report

“(2) When ████████ telephoned the surgery, complaining of Mr Mansfield’s pain, strong pain killers were prescribed but he was not seen despite a long history of lung and chest complaints, multiple rib fractures and treatment with warfarin. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to conduct timely, appropriate clinical assessments; Failure to provide face-to-face clinical assessment when clinically indicated.

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 differentiation and prioritisation of serious-injury discharge summaries

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Mansfield had an xray and was discharged from Addenbrookes Hospital on 25 February. You have arranged that the hospital post discharge letters to your surgery. This was not received until 28th February 2013 by which time Mrs Mansfield had called requesting stronger pain killers. The discharge summary was only reviewed by a doctor on 6 March. You stated that only if a patient was admitted to hospital would their discharge letter get prompt attention. There was no apparent method for differentiating between discharge summaries which involved serious injuries and those which did not. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable receipt, prioritisation and clinical review of hospital discharge summaries.

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.