PFD report

Ronald William Lowe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Apr 2019•Birmingham and Solihull

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
1

Of 1 recipient

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 audit or review radiographers' training records to ensure training is documented and up to date
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain training records that verify staff competence
  2. Lack of a robust system for ensuring radiographers have seen all standard operating procedures relevant to their practice
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

    Add ongoing SOP reviews and staff sign-offs to the central radiographer training register.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 June 2019.
  2. Action

    Provide radiographers with updated CT SOPs and require signed confirmation that they have read and understood them.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 June 2019.
  3. Action

    Use a standard competency template alongside annual appraisals to review training and obtain staff fitness-to-practise self-declarations.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 June 2019.

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

  1. Position

    Records showed the radiographer had signed to confirm reading and understanding the applicable CT radiographer SOP.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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 audit or review radiographers' training records to ensure training is documented and up to date

Wider context from the report

“4. The evidence of ████████, Consultant Radiologist at QEH who conducted the RCA, was that all radiographers have now been provided with and required to sign the updated CT SOPs but there has been no audit or review of radiographs files to check that other aspects of their training are documented and up to date. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain training records that verify staff competence.

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 a robust system for ensuring radiographers have seen all standard operating procedures relevant to their practice

Wider context from the report

“4. The evidence of ████████, Consultant Radiologist at QEH who conducted the RCA, was that all radiographers have now been provided with and required to sign the updated CT SOPs but there has been no audit or review of radiographs files to check that other aspects of their training are documented and up to date. 5. I am concerned that it had previously gone unnoticed that ████████ had not signed a copy of the SOPs for CT indicating that there is not a robust system for ensuring radiographers have seen all standard operating procedures relevant to their practice. Consequently there is a risk that radiographers are practicing with an incorrect understanding of their duties and obligations which could endanger life. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Add ongoing SOP reviews and staff sign-offs to the central radiographer training register.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the interim, a central register of staff has been composed for GHH, BHH and SH. This will be overseen in a manner that is modality specific e.g. CT, MRI, ultrasound rather than location and modality specific. This register will be a record of all the training required and undertaken by radiographers across these locations. The register will allow for continual monitoring and audit of the training provided to the whole radiographer workforce. It will provide additional assurance that radiographers have received all necessary training and have been exposed to all the information required in their role.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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

Provide radiographers with updated CT SOPs and require signed confirmation that they have read and understood them.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. The evidence of ████████, Consultant Radiologist at QEH who conducted the RCA, was that all radiographers have now been provided with and required to sign the updated CT SOPs but there has been no audit or review of radiographers files to check that other aspects of their training are documented and up to date.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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 a standard competency template alongside annual appraisals to review training and obtain staff fitness-to-practise self-declarations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All our staff receive an annual appraisal and as part of this process staff training will be reviewed against the register and staff will be asked to complete a ‘self-declaration’ of fitness to practice. This process will include equipment training, any rules to the specific area, Ionising Radiation Medical Exposure Regulation (IRMER) Procedures as well as any appropriate SOPs. The senior radiography education lead has produced a template of the expected radiographer competencies and this will be used in conjunction with individual appraisals going forward.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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

Maintain a central, modality-specific register of radiographer training and competencies across Good Hope, Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull hospitals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Imaging Practice and Education Lead for Good Hope Hospital (GHH) Birmingham Heartlands Hospital (BHH) and Solihull Hospital (SH) has met with her equivalent at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in order to align practice.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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

Monitor and audit training across the radiographer workforce through the central register.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the interim, a central register of staff has been composed for GHH, BHH and SH. This will be overseen in a manner that is modality specific e.g. CT, MRI, ultrasound rather than location and modality specific. This register will be a record of all the training required and undertaken by radiographers across these locations. The register will allow for continual monitoring and audit of the training provided to the whole radiographer workforce. It will provide additional assurance that radiographers have received all necessary training and have been exposed to all the information required in their role.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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

Records showed the radiographer had signed to confirm reading and understanding the applicable CT radiographer SOP.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I recognise that you heard evidence during the Inquest that ████████ had not seen the standard operating procedures for CT scanning which were applicable in September 2018. Specifically, you made the following points in your letter”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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

    Arrange specialist cardiothoracic radiologist reporting of outpatient CTPA examinations.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 June 2019.
  2. 2

    Place all outpatient CTPA examinations in a single inpatient folder for expedited reporting.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 June 2019.
  3. 3

    Produce a template defining expected radiographer competencies.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 June 2019.
  4. 4

    Review outpatient CTPA examinations before patients leave the department.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 June 2019.
  5. 5

    Review all outpatient CTPA studies at Good Hope Hospital over the preceding 12 months.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 June 2019.
  6. 6

    Update the CT training document to reflect the refreshed CT SOP.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 June 2019.
  7. 7

    Distribute a CT staff learning document by email.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 June 2019.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    The incident was considered exceptional rather than evidence of a broader systemic risk in outpatient CTPA reporting.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    There was no evidence that the reporting-folder lapse formed part of a pattern of behaviour by the radiographer.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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

Arrange specialist cardiothoracic radiologist reporting of outpatient CTPA examinations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Management of the risk associated with these cases (with Mr Lowe 0.3% of all CTPA's) led to a new policy being introduced in December 2018 where all out-patient CTPA examinations are now placed in the in-patient folder to ensure prompt reporting. This policy has been under continual review and there has now been complete alignment with the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in that there will be a review of all out-patient CTPA examinations prior to the patient leaving the department, followed by specialist reporting of the scan by a cardiothoracic radiologist.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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

Place all outpatient CTPA examinations in a single inpatient folder for expedited reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Management of the risk associated with these cases (with Mr Lowe 0.3% of all CTPA's) led to a new policy being introduced in December 2018 where all out-patient CTPA examinations are now placed in the in-patient folder to ensure prompt reporting. This policy has been under continual review and there has now been complete alignment with the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in that there will be a review of all out-patient CTPA examinations prior to the patient leaving the department, followed by specialist reporting of the scan by a cardiothoracic radiologist.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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 a template defining expected radiographer competencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All our staff receive an annual appraisal and as part of this process staff training will be reviewed against the register and staff will be asked to complete a ‘self-declaration’ of fitness to practice. This process will include equipment training, any rules to the specific area, Ionising Radiation Medical Exposure Regulation (IRMER) Procedures as well as any appropriate SOPs. The senior radiography education lead has produced a template of the expected radiographer competencies and this will be used in conjunction with individual appraisals going forward.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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 outpatient CTPA examinations before patients leave the department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Management of the risk associated with these cases (with Mr Lowe 0.3% of all CTPA's) led to a new policy being introduced in December 2018 where all out-patient CTPA examinations are now placed in the in-patient folder to ensure prompt reporting. This policy has been under continual review and there has now been complete alignment with the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in that there will be a review of all out-patient CTPA examinations prior to the patient leaving the department, followed by specialist reporting of the scan by a cardiothoracic radiologist.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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 all outpatient CTPA studies at Good Hope Hospital over the preceding 12 months.

Verbatim wording from the response

“University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has carefully considered the concerns raised within your report to prevent future deaths. Before I address the specific concerns you raised, in response to this incident I implemented a review of all out-patient CT Pulmonary Angiogram (CTPA) studies carried out at Good Hope Hospital over the past 12 months (April 2018-2019). I would like to share with you the results of this review.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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

Update the CT training document to reflect the refreshed CT SOP.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In December 2018, following this incident, the Lead CT Radiographer for Heartlands, Good Hope and Solihull Hospitals took the following steps with ████████:”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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

Distribute a CT staff learning document by email.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In December 2018, following this incident, the Lead CT Radiographer for Heartlands, Good Hope and Solihull Hospitals took the following steps with ████████:”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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 incident was considered exceptional rather than evidence of a broader systemic risk in outpatient CTPA reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Excluding Mr. Lowe’s scan, of the remaining 1.3% (16) none were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE).”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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 evidence that the reporting-folder lapse formed part of a pattern of behaviour by the radiographer.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that ████████ understands the importance of allocating imaging studies to the appropriate folder so that they are visible to a radiologist for formal reporting. He understands the significance of the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and complying with measures to ensure prompt reporting of all out-patient CT pulmonary angiograms where acute pulmonary embolism is suspected. Since the incident, the process to ensure this is achieved has been revised to reduce the chance of errors of execution. It requires simply that all CTPA’s are placed within a single ‘in-patient’ folder for expedited reporting.”

Source location

2019-0113-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 June 2019

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