PFD report

Mrs Sylvia Mitchell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Dec 2018•Black Country

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
9

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 raised4

  1. Inadequate communication of the risks of delayed pessary removal
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
  2. Failure to provide routine pessary cleansing
  3. Failure to ensure proper pessary fitting
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.6

  1. Action

    Translate pessary information leaflets into multiple languages.

    Stated by The TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 May 2019.
  2. Action

    Develop improved ways to identify women needing pessary follow-up and determine when follow-up is no longer required.

    Stated by The TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 May 2019.
  3. Action

    Recall patients who missed planned pessary follow-up for review appointments with Clinical Nurse Specialists.

    Stated by The TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 May 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Existing recall and follow-up processes appropriately safeguard women who miss planned pessary appointments.

    Stated by The 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

Inadequate communication of the risks of delayed pessary removal

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that there was inadequate communication between the Trust and GP advising Mrs Mitchell of the risks of not having the pessary removed urgently. 2. Specifically, the Pathologist gave evidence confirming that pessaries are typically used in the non-surgical management of severe pelvic organ prolapse, often in post-menopausal women with poorly oestrogenised, and easily traumatised vaginal mucosa. A pessary is a foreign object in constant contact with the vaginal epithelium, therefore, its use requires adequate follow-up to ensure proper fitting, routine cleansing and monitoring of the integrity of the vagina. Failure to observe these precautions heightens risk of infection, impaction/incarceration and ulceration, potentially with recto-vaginal and/or vesico-vaginal fistulation – the latter are very rare iatrogenic complications of pessary use with only approximately 8 cases reported in the world literature (Gordon GH et al. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 4 (1): 193-196), almost exclusively, however, associated with Gellhorn and shelf pattern prostheses, usually in the age range of 70 to 80 years, often allegedly contributed to by lapse of regular maintenance & hygiene procedures. 3. Due to the delays in removal of the pessary she died as a result of developing a fistula and urosepsis. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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 provide routine pessary cleansing

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that there was inadequate communication between the Trust and GP advising Mrs Mitchell of the risks of not having the pessary removed urgently. 2. Specifically, the Pathologist gave evidence confirming that pessaries are typically used in the non-surgical management of severe pelvic organ prolapse, often in post-menopausal women with poorly oestrogenised, and easily traumatised vaginal mucosa. A pessary is a foreign object in constant contact with the vaginal epithelium, therefore, its use requires adequate follow-up to ensure proper fitting, routine cleansing and monitoring of the integrity of the vagina. Failure to observe these precautions heightens risk of infection, impaction/incarceration and ulceration, potentially with recto-vaginal and/or vesico-vaginal fistulation – the latter are very rare iatrogenic complications of pessary use with only approximately 8 cases reported in the world literature (Gordon GH et al. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 4 (1): 193-196), almost exclusively, however, associated with Gellhorn and shelf pattern prostheses, usually in the age range of 70 to 80 years, often allegedly contributed to by lapse of regular maintenance & hygiene procedures. 3. Due to the delays in removal of the pessary she died as a result of developing a fistula and urosepsis. ”

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 proper pessary fitting

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that there was inadequate communication between the Trust and GP advising Mrs Mitchell of the risks of not having the pessary removed urgently. 2. Specifically, the Pathologist gave evidence confirming that pessaries are typically used in the non-surgical management of severe pelvic organ prolapse, often in post-menopausal women with poorly oestrogenised, and easily traumatised vaginal mucosa. A pessary is a foreign object in constant contact with the vaginal epithelium, therefore, its use requires adequate follow-up to ensure proper fitting, routine cleansing and monitoring of the integrity of the vagina. Failure to observe these precautions heightens risk of infection, impaction/incarceration and ulceration, potentially with recto-vaginal and/or vesico-vaginal fistulation – the latter are very rare iatrogenic complications of pessary use with only approximately 8 cases reported in the world literature (Gordon GH et al. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 4 (1): 193-196), almost exclusively, however, associated with Gellhorn and shelf pattern prostheses, usually in the age range of 70 to 80 years, often allegedly contributed to by lapse of regular maintenance & hygiene procedures. 3. Due to the delays in removal of the pessary she died as a result of developing a fistula and urosepsis. ”

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 monitor vaginal integrity during pessary use

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that there was inadequate communication between the Trust and GP advising Mrs Mitchell of the risks of not having the pessary removed urgently. 2. Specifically, the Pathologist gave evidence confirming that pessaries are typically used in the non-surgical management of severe pelvic organ prolapse, often in post-menopausal women with poorly oestrogenised, and easily traumatised vaginal mucosa. A pessary is a foreign object in constant contact with the vaginal epithelium, therefore, its use requires adequate follow-up to ensure proper fitting, routine cleansing and monitoring of the integrity of the vagina. Failure to observe these precautions heightens risk of infection, impaction/incarceration and ulceration, potentially with recto-vaginal and/or vesico-vaginal fistulation – the latter are very rare iatrogenic complications of pessary use with only approximately 8 cases reported in the world literature (Gordon GH et al. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 4 (1): 193-196), almost exclusively, however, associated with Gellhorn and shelf pattern prostheses, usually in the age range of 70 to 80 years, often allegedly contributed to by lapse of regular maintenance & hygiene procedures. 3. Due to the delays in removal of the pessary she died as a result of developing a fistula and urosepsis. ”

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

Translate pessary information leaflets into multiple languages.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Every person attending for pessary insertion now receives an information leaflet which clearly outlines the need for follow up appointments and the risks of having a pessary, including ulceration, bleeding and loss discharge. These are being translated into multiple languages. We will share these leaflets with primary care colleagues for provision in consult rooms locally.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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

Develop improved ways to identify women needing pessary follow-up and determine when follow-up is no longer required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of this, looking forward patients who we have identified have not had a follow up as planned are being recalled for a review appointment with our Clinical Nurse Specialists. We are also discussing ways to enable us to easily see which women need follow up, and when this need”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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

Recall patients who missed planned pessary follow-up for review appointments with Clinical Nurse Specialists.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of this, looking forward patients who we have identified have not had a follow up as planned are being recalled for a review appointment with our Clinical Nurse Specialists. We are also discussing ways to enable us to easily see which women need follow up, and when this need”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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 pessary information leaflets covering follow-up requirements and risks to every patient attending for insertion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Every person attending for pessary insertion now receives an information leaflet which clearly outlines the need for follow up appointments and the risks of having a pessary, including ulceration, bleeding and loss discharge. These are being translated into multiple languages. We will share these leaflets with primary care colleagues for provision in consult rooms locally.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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

Amend pessary follow-up processes to send letters and repeated appointments after non-attendance, with GP escalation after continued non-response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, we had already amended our processes to tighten further our follow up procedure. Women self-book their 6 monthly appointments via partial booking, but if this does not happen we follow up with a letter. For women who do not attend for a planned appointment, we send a further appointment for 4 weeks’ time. This is repeated should they fail to attend again and then we write to the GP requesting them to review and let us know if a further appointment is required. We have now asked our Planned Care Board to undertake a twice yearly clinical review of any patient who does not reply to all of those efforts. This list, pseudo-anonymised, will also be provided to Primary Care Network colleagues. In other words we will be more overtly curious about the reasons for non-response.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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

Share pessary information leaflets with primary care colleagues for use in local consultation rooms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Every person attending for pessary insertion now receives an information leaflet which clearly outlines the need for follow up appointments and the risks of having a pessary, including ulceration, bleeding and loss discharge. These are being translated into multiple languages. We will share these leaflets with primary care colleagues for provision in consult rooms locally.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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

Existing recall and follow-up processes appropriately safeguard women who miss planned pessary appointments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You asked us to ensure that any patients who may have missed opportunities to be seen, as Mrs Mitchell was, are safe and this is in progress and will likely continue through this year. I am satisfied that we have a process in place which is recalling women appropriately and that we are developing further ways to identify those women who need following up in our service, rather than with their GP, to give a further safety net.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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 patient was reviewed at appropriate intervals and listed for pessary-removal surgery, but illness prevented attendance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In respect of Mrs Mitchell, I do believe that we attempted to review her at appropriate intervals and listed her for surgery to remove the pessary. Unfortunately she was unwell and unable to attend on the date organised and we requested that both the patient and the GP let us know when she was well enough to undergo surgery. As you know, this did not occur. We apply NHS-standard protocols for the ‘chasing’ of patients in these circumstances.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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.3

  1. 1

    Review Trust Board data on gynaecology non-responders from the preceding 18 months for further omissions.

    Stated by The TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 May 2019.
  2. 2

    Arrange twice-yearly Planned Care Board clinical reviews of patients who do not respond to follow-up efforts.

    Stated by The TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 May 2019.
  3. 3

    Provide a pseudonymised list of persistent non-responders to Primary Care Network colleagues.

    Stated by The TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 May 2019.

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 Trust Board data on gynaecology non-responders from the preceding 18 months for further omissions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In six months’ time we will review at the Trust’s Board data on non-responders within gynaecology services for the prior 18 months to see if there are any further omissions we might consider.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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

Arrange twice-yearly Planned Care Board clinical reviews of patients who do not respond to follow-up efforts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, we had already amended our processes to tighten further our follow up procedure. Women self-book their 6 monthly appointments via partial booking, but if this does not happen we follow up with a letter. For women who do not attend for a planned appointment, we send a further appointment for 4 weeks’ time. This is repeated should they fail to attend again and then we write to the GP requesting them to review and let us know if a further appointment is required. We have now asked our Planned Care Board to undertake a twice yearly clinical review of any patient who does not reply to all of those efforts. This list, pseudo-anonymised, will also be provided to Primary Care Network colleagues. In other words we will be more overtly curious about the reasons for non-response.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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 a pseudonymised list of persistent non-responders to Primary Care Network colleagues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, we had already amended our processes to tighten further our follow up procedure. Women self-book their 6 monthly appointments via partial booking, but if this does not happen we follow up with a letter. For women who do not attend for a planned appointment, we send a further appointment for 4 weeks’ time. This is repeated should they fail to attend again and then we write to the GP requesting them to review and let us know if a further appointment is required. We have now asked our Planned Care Board to undertake a twice yearly clinical review of any patient who does not reply to all of those efforts. This list, pseudo-anonymised, will also be provided to Primary Care Network colleagues. In other words we will be more overtly curious about the reasons for non-response.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026