PFD report

Matthew Goldsmith · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Oct 2025•East 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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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 raised2

  1. Failure to report abnormal abdominal vascular findings on CT scans
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging
  2. Lack of peer review of reported radiology cases
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

    Conduct plain-film peer reviews at the established five-percent level using the Radiology specialty lead and shared governance records.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2025.
  2. Action

    Introduce Radiology peer review aligned with RCR guidance, scaling monthly case reviews and reporting learning through governance dashboards.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 October 2025.
  3. Action

    Deliver a grand round teaching session on acute and chronic presentations of mesenteric arterial occlusion.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 October 2025.

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 report abnormal abdominal vascular findings on CT scans

Wider context from the report

“Abnormal findings in the abdominal vascular system were apparent on 3 CT scans from January 2020 to October 2024 but not reported by the reviewing radiologists. In January 2020 a CT trauma scan was carried out following a road traffic collision. This scan showed an occluded right common iliac artery and origin of inferior mesenteric artery. Whilst these findings were not relevant to the clinical condition at the time, they should have been reported. In April 2024 the CT scan of the chest showed occlusion of the infrarenal aorta, bilateral common iliac artery and right external iliac artery. There was severe stenosis of the superior mesenteric artery in its mid segment. The latter finding was of direct clinical interest. None of these findings were reported. On 10 October 2024 an abdominal CT scan showed occlusion of the superior mesenteric artery mid segment. This was directly relevant to the clinical condition and it was not reported. The Royal College of Radiologists Guidance requires peer review of 5-10% of reported radiology cases as part of a Trust’s quality assurance process. At the date of the inquest, Barking Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust does not have such a peer review system in place. In light of the number of missed radiological findings in this case, by 3 separate radiologists, it is of concern that the peer review process is not taking place at the trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging.

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 peer review of reported radiology cases

Wider context from the report

“Abnormal findings in the abdominal vascular system were apparent on 3 CT scans from January 2020 to October 2024 but not reported by the reviewing radiologists. In January 2020 a CT trauma scan was carried out following a road traffic collision. This scan showed an occluded right common iliac artery and origin of inferior mesenteric artery. Whilst these findings were not relevant to the clinical condition at the time, they should have been reported. In April 2024 the CT scan of the chest showed occlusion of the infrarenal aorta, bilateral common iliac artery and right external iliac artery. There was severe stenosis of the superior mesenteric artery in its mid segment. The latter finding was of direct clinical interest. None of these findings were reported. On 10 October 2024 an abdominal CT scan showed occlusion of the superior mesenteric artery mid segment. This was directly relevant to the clinical condition and it was not reported. The Royal College of Radiologists Guidance requires peer review of 5-10% of reported radiology cases as part of a Trust’s quality assurance process. At the date of the inquest, Barking Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust does not have such a peer review system in place. In light of the number of missed radiological findings in this case, by 3 separate radiologists, it is of concern that the peer review process is not taking place at the trust. ”

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

Conduct plain-film peer reviews at the established five-percent level using the Radiology specialty lead and shared governance records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Plain Film Peer Review Within Radiology, the plain film x-ray specialty has already commenced peer reviews which has been in place for over 12 months and from July 2025, the specialty has managed to peer review 5% of cases and is being led by the Radiology Specialty lead. A Standard operating procedure was created and will be replicated to the other modality/specialty areas. A shared governance file stores all reviewed cases.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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

Introduce Radiology peer review aligned with RCR guidance, scaling monthly case reviews and reporting learning through governance dashboards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Development and implementation of a peer review process for Radiology in alignment with RCR guidance, ensuring systematic case review and feedback mechanisms.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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

Deliver a grand round teaching session on acute and chronic presentations of mesenteric arterial occlusion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. A grand round teaching session will be delivered on 11 December 2025 by the Surgical Clinical Group around acute and chronic presentation of mesenteric arterial occlusion. The Grand round is a regular learning session led by the Director of Medical Education to review incidents where learning has been established. At this grand round colleagues from the upper Gastrointestinal and Vascular teams were present.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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

Replicate the plain-film peer-review standard operating procedure across other Radiology modalities and specialties.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Plain Film Peer Review Within Radiology, the plain film x-ray specialty has already commenced peer reviews which has been in place for over 12 months and from July 2025, the specialty has managed to peer review 5% of cases and is being led by the Radiology Specialty lead. A Standard operating procedure was created and will be replicated to the other modality/specialty areas. A shared governance file stores all reviewed cases.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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

Introduce a SEIPS-based discrepancy-learning project, including rapid reviews and dual-track PSIRF systems-thinking investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Introduction of a SEIPS-based project to identify and address human and system factors contributing to reporting discrepancies.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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.4

  1. 1

    Present the case at the Trust-wide Patient Safety Summit for shared learning.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2025.
  2. 2

    Monitor completion and embedding of the action plan through established governance processes.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 October 2025.
  3. 3

    Implement the Electronic Patient Record system to enable real-time recording of radiologists’ and referring clinicians’ decisions and advice.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2025.
  4. 4

    Develop the Radiology Governance Framework with aligned workstreams, leads, measures and enhanced organisational oversight.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 October 2025.

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

Present the case at the Trust-wide Patient Safety Summit for shared learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The case was presented at the BHRUT Patient Safety Summit (PSS) on 23 July 2025 for Trust wide learning. The PSS is a monthly Trust wide open forum for staff to attend and learn about incidents that have significant learning outcomes. This embeds shared learning for all and is also available on the intranet for staff that are unable to join.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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 completion and embedding of the action plan through established governance processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We thank the Coroner for highlighting these critical issues. The Trust is fully committed to completing all actions within the specified timelines, with progress rigorously monitored through established governance processes. We will ensure that these measures are fully implemented and embedded into routine practice, driving sustained improvements in patient safety and the quality of radiological care.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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

Implement the Electronic Patient Record system to enable real-time recording of radiologists’ and referring clinicians’ decisions and advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. BHRUT has implemented Electronic Patient Record (EPR) system from week commencing 08 November 2025 which will enable Radiologists and referring clinician’s to record real-time decisions and clinical advice directly into the patients record.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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 the Radiology Governance Framework with aligned workstreams, leads, measures and enhanced organisational oversight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Radiology senior team are in the process of outlining a Radiology Governance Framework (project plan) by aligning workstreams, responsible leads and measuring key outputs by each of the governance domains and fundamentally ensuring that this links back to the SEIPS plan (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) methodology. This is a working plan which in the coming months will be discussed with clinical and non-clinical staff for oversight and approval. Within this plan there are essential domains which responds to the coroner’s concerns and will be standalone items to ensure that they are progressed without delay and detailed below including an action plan. With the framework there will be enhanced oversight and assurance through the Corporate Quality & Safety Team, Radiology Governance Forum, and Legal Services.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2025

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