PFD report

Feni Lee · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Jun 2019•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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised4

  1. Failure to ensure incoming clinical correspondence is reviewed and actioned by a GP
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence
  2. Ineffective redirection of post between co-located GP practices
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable receipt and routing of clinical correspondence by GP practicesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence
  3. Insufficiently thorough review of repeat medication
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to identify clinically significant medication risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate review of long-term medication usePart of recurring concern: Unreliable review and monitoring of repeat prescriptions
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.3

  1. Action

    Implement medication reviews for patients without a review for over 12 months, using EMIS searches, clinician prompts, and recall monitoring for higher-risk medicines.

    Stated by Bexley Medical GroupStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 September 2019.
  2. Action

    Contact mental health patients who miss hospital outpatient appointments to establish reasons and support attendance.

    Stated by Bexley Medical GroupStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 September 2019.
  3. Action

    Route all correspondence to GPs to ensure an audit trail and accountability.

    Stated by Bexley Medical GroupStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 September 2019.

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 incoming clinical correspondence is reviewed and actioned by a GP

Wider context from the report

“(3) You informed the inquest that there are two GP practices at Erith Health Centre on Pier Rd. They are based in the same building and the receptionists from both practices work in close proximity. The letter from Guys relating to the outpatient clinic on 20 October 2015 was appropriately sent to Erith Health Centre on Pier Rd but had the name of a GP from the other practice. You accepted that there was considerable delay in this letter being forwarded to your practice and that it was scanned onto your system some 2 to 3 months after it was sent. You also accepted that it was placed onto your system without being seen or actioned by a GP. My concern is that there does not appear to be an effective means whereby post is re-directed between the two GP practices. I am therefore copying this report to the other GP practice, which I understand to be the practice of ████████ and ████████ ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence.

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

Ineffective redirection of post between co-located GP practices

Wider context from the report

“(3) You informed the inquest that there are two GP practices at Erith Health Centre on Pier Rd. They are based in the same building and the receptionists from both practices work in close proximity. The letter from Guys relating to the outpatient clinic on 20 October 2015 was appropriately sent to Erith Health Centre on Pier Rd but had the name of a GP from the other practice. You accepted that there was considerable delay in this letter being forwarded to your practice and that it was scanned onto your system some 2 to 3 months after it was sent. You also accepted that it was placed onto your system without being seen or actioned by a GP. My concern is that there does not appear to be an effective means whereby post is re-directed between the two GP practices. I am therefore copying this report to the other GP practice, which I understand to be the practice of ████████ and ████████ ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable receipt and routing of clinical correspondence by GP practices; Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence.

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

Insufficiently thorough review of repeat medication

Wider context from the report

“(1) You informed the inquest that Bexley Medical Group has a system whereby all medication obtained by repeat prescription is reviewed annually. You could not say exactly when the review of Ms Lee’s medication took place (at that time it was not documented) but said it would have been towards the end of 2016. You said the review looked at the need for ongoing medication and the dose. There were a number of features that do not appear to have been taken into account at this review: a. Colchicine is an unlicensed usage of a drug used to treat a rare disorder. It was being prescribed by the GP under instructions from a specialist hospital clinic. b. There had been no instructions from Guys as to what should be prescribed since January 2016. c. The instructions from Guys in January 2016 do not mention colchicine. No inquiry was made with Guys to check whether the intention was for it to be continued as part of the treatment, and yet it continued to be given by the GP as a repeat prescription. d. The dosage being given on repeat prescription does not match any of the recent instructions from Guys about its use. e. Ms Lee had mental health problems and was a vulnerable person. I therefore have concerns about the thoroughness of this medication review. (2) Towards the end of 2016 it would have been obvious that Ms Lee had been lost to follow up at the hospital, and so the drug review appears to have been a lost opportunity to rectify this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to identify clinically significant medication risks; Inadequate review of long-term medication use; Unreliable review and monitoring of repeat prescriptions.

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 identify and address hospital loss to follow-up during medication review

Wider context from the report

“(1) You informed the inquest that Bexley Medical Group has a system whereby all medication obtained by repeat prescription is reviewed annually. You could not say exactly when the review of Ms Lee’s medication took place (at that time it was not documented) but said it would have been towards the end of 2016. You said the review looked at the need for ongoing medication and the dose. There were a number of features that do not appear to have been taken into account at this review: a. Colchicine is an unlicensed usage of a drug used to treat a rare disorder. It was being prescribed by the GP under instructions from a specialist hospital clinic. b. There had been no instructions from Guys as to what should be prescribed since January 2016. c. The instructions from Guys in January 2016 do not mention colchicine. No inquiry was made with Guys to check whether the intention was for it to be continued as part of the treatment, and yet it continued to be given by the GP as a repeat prescription. d. The dosage being given on repeat prescription does not match any of the recent instructions from Guys about its use. e. Ms Lee had mental health problems and was a vulnerable person. I therefore have concerns about the thoroughness of this medication review. (2) Towards the end of 2016 it would have been obvious that Ms Lee had been lost to follow up at the hospital, and so the drug review appears to have been a lost opportunity to rectify this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up; Failure to maintain follow-up of patients who disengage from care.

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

Implement medication reviews for patients without a review for over 12 months, using EMIS searches, clinician prompts, and recall monitoring for higher-risk medicines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have started implementing our plan to carry out medication reviews in all patients, who have not had a review for over 12 months. Our new software EMIS, which was installed in June 2018, is able to support searches of any outstanding medication review. We have reviewed over 86% of patients taking four or more drugs, and 63% of patients taking one to three drugs.”

Source location

2019-0224-Response-by-Bexley-Medical-Group
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 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

Contact mental health patients who miss hospital outpatient appointments to establish reasons and support attendance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our administrators and receptionists will contact patients with mental health problems, who do not attend hospital outpatient appointment to establish the reasons and support them in keeping up with their appointments.”

Source location

2019-0224-Response-by-Bexley-Medical-Group
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 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

Route all correspondence to GPs to ensure an audit trail and accountability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We also discussed the issues with actioning letters and we will ensure that all correspondence is work flowed to the GPs to ensure proper audit trail and accountability.”

Source location

2019-0224-Response-by-Bexley-Medical-Group
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 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