PFD report

Pauline Meredith · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Jan 2014•Staffordshire South

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised5

  1. Lack of a formal medication review process for long-term medication prescribing
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate review of long-term medication use
  2. Failure to listen to family concerns about changed patient behaviour
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and familiesPart of recurring concern: Failure to obtain relevant collateral information from family and social supports
  3. Lack of team meetings to discuss challenging patients
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe operation of multidisciplinary clinical meetings
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.2

  1. Action

    Develop structured criteria and a protocol for identifying complex patients who would benefit from discussion at clinical meetings.

    Stated by Browning Street SurgeryStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 January 2014.
  2. Action

    Consider and initiate independent medication reviews by asking an uninvolved doctor to review complex patients’ medication when appropriate.

    Stated by Browning Street SurgeryStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 January 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    Morphine was considered appropriate because pain was significant, alternatives had failed, alcohol intake had reduced, and prescribing was regularly reviewed.

    Stated by Browning Street SurgeryDisputes 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

Lack of a formal medication review process for long-term medication prescribing

Wider context from the report

“(1) The amount of medication prescribed to the deceased over many years with no formal medication review process. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate review of long-term medication use.

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 listen to family concerns about changed patient behaviour

Wider context from the report

“(3) The family’s perceived reluctance by the GP to listen to the concerns expressed by them with regards to the changed behaviour of the patient following the addition of morphine. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and families; Failure to obtain relevant collateral information from family and social supports.

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 team meetings to discuss challenging patients

Wider context from the report

“(4) The lack of any team meetings with colleagues affording an opportunity to discuss challenging patients with colleagues. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe operation of multidisciplinary clinical meetings.

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 safely assess morphine prescribing alongside high-dose painkillers and alcohol dependence

Wider context from the report

“(2) The more recent addition of morphine to the prescription for a patient already on a high dose of pain killers and with alcohol dependence ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient assessment of patients’ current drug use before drug treatment; Unsafe medication prescribing; Unsafe prescribing for patients consuming excessive alcohol.

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 timely proactive approach to involving community mental health services

Wider context from the report

“(5) The lack of a more timely proactive approach with regards to involving community mental health services. ”

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

Develop structured criteria and a protocol for identifying complex patients who would benefit from discussion at clinical meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2) The practice will endeavour in the future to identify complex patients who might benefit from discussion at clinical meetings. The practice is currently considering how to select patients for these”

Source location

2014-0011-Response-by-Browning-Street-Surgery
Page 8 · response
Published 10 January 2014

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

Consider and initiate independent medication reviews by asking an uninvolved doctor to review complex patients’ medication when appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3) Miss Meredith had seen 3 other doctors and the nurse practitioner in previous 8 months before her death. Having reflected on this case, I recognise that it can often be useful to have another clinician with a fresh pair of eyes looking at patients with chronic problems. The practice will consider whether there are circumstances where the medication reviews are best carried out by another doctor who is not so involved with the case. This would be actioned by the regular doctor asking for a medication review by a colleague who was not involved in management of the case. This is to be initiated from now.”

Source location

2014-0011-Response-by-Browning-Street-Surgery
Page 9 · response
Published 10 January 2014

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

Morphine was considered appropriate because pain was significant, alternatives had failed, alcohol intake had reduced, and prescribing was regularly reviewed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to her request for additional analgesia in February 2013, options were limited. For pain relief, she was already taking tramadol 50mg 2 tablets four times daily (maximum dose) plus paracetamol 500mg 2 tablets four times daily (maximum dose) and diclofenac 50mg three times daily (maximal usual dose). I was reluctant to prescribe co-codamol or codeine or dihydrocodeine. These had previously been prescribed with little effect on her pain. She was already on a strong anti-inflammatory painkiller (diclofenac) and so there was little value in changing to an alternative anti-inflammatory. As Miss Meredith’s pain appeared significant, I decided to prescribe MST (slow release morphine sulphate tablets) 1 tablet twice daily at the lowest dose possible, 10mg. The treatment plan initially was to prescribe this for one week and then review whilst she regained control of her pain.”

Source location

2014-0011-Response-by-Browning-Street-Surgery
Page 3 · response
Published 10 January 2014

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 computerised reviews, weekly prescriptions and consultations were considered sufficient to monitor and control medication access.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would wish to reassure you that there is indeed a formal medication review process used at the practice. The medication review system is computer based. The computer automatically initiates a demand for review of medication for each patient who has repeat medications. This is usually annually but can occur more frequently depending on the monitoring requirements stipulated by the prescribing doctor. The computer also places limits on the number of repeats that can be issued without re-authorisation of the repeat medication by a doctor. The review of repeat medication is usually based on clinical information contained in annual health checks or from consultations at the practice or from a dedicated review of repeat medication with the patient.”

Source location

2014-0011-Response-by-Browning-Street-Surgery
Page 2 · response
Published 10 January 2014

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

Earlier mental-health referral or compulsory admission was not considered necessary while the patient refused referral, retained capacity and was not sufficiently disturbed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Summary: Miss Meredith had been much more stable since a difficult period in 2009–2010 which was associated with overdoses and self-harm during which she had never engaged with mental health support. In 2013, she was dealing with significant levels of family stress and had developed paranoid ideas about her neighbours. Otherwise her mental state although anxious was certainly not psychotic and she continued to function relatively normally. Miss Meredith refused to accept a referral to mental health services on at least 3 times between May and July 2013 when I suggested it. There were no time when she was so disturbed that she could have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. She maintained capacity and so had to consent to any referral being made.”

Source location

2014-0011-Response-by-Browning-Street-Surgery
Page 8 · response
Published 10 January 2014

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

A practice meeting was not considered necessary because the patient appeared relatively stable and was receiving frequent support and supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The lack of team meetings to discuss challenging patients: It is likely that I would have discussed Pauline and her anxiety and paranoid thinking with my General Practice colleagues in an informal way, as this often occurs in the course of General Practice when challenging problems are posed by patients, but I cannot recollect when this may have occurred. Informal discussions are not recorded in the notes.”

Source location

2014-0011-Response-by-Browning-Street-Surgery
Page 6 · response
Published 10 January 2014

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 paranoid thoughts were considered unrelated to morphine and more likely associated with stress and previous similar episodes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to ████████ concern about the paranoia being related to the morphine, I did not consider this to be likely. Miss Meredith’s thoughts seem to be a localised paranoia as otherwise her mental state seemed appropriate, according to the information that I had from Miss Meredith and her family. My impression was that it would be very unusual for Morphine to trigger paranoia and her paranoid thoughts were more likely to be a response to stressful situations. Morphine is not usually associated with paranoia or delusions, although can be associated with hallucinations, confusion and agitation. I additionally considered that Miss Meredith’s paranoid thoughts were similar to her previous episodes when she reported paranoid feelings between 2003 and 2006. At that time she had thought that she was being followed by special branch or inspectors from the benefits agency.”

Source location

2014-0011-Response-by-Browning-Street-Surgery
Page 5 · response
Published 10 January 2014

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.1

  1. 1

    Run regular practice meetings to review all deaths of patients under 50, supported by a formal agreed protocol.

    Stated by Browning Street SurgeryStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 January 2014.

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

Run regular practice meetings to review all deaths of patients under 50, supported by a formal agreed protocol.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1) We have formally instigated a programme of regular practice meetings which will look at all deaths in the under 50’s. In the past this has been adhoc but now the process will be more formal. Deaths in young people are infrequent but also extremely significant and the practice wishes to ensure all that can be done is done to prevent these. A protocol for this will be written and agreed within the next month. The first meeting will take place in the next 2 months and will continue thereafter.”

Source location

2014-0011-Response-by-Browning-Street-Surgery
Page 8 · response
Published 10 January 2014

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026