PFD report

David John Smith · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Aug 2019•Manchester City

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 transmit donor kidney CMV status to the renal transplant team
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably transfer complete information to transplant centres
  2. Failure to communicate donor kidney CMV status to the transplant recipient for informed consent
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate informed-consent processes for medical treatment
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.1

  1. Action

    Strengthen transplant consent by specifically discussing and documenting donor-recipient CMV risks before transplantation.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 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 transmit donor kidney CMV status to the renal transplant team

Wider context from the report

“1. The consent process – I found that the CMV status of the donor’s kidneys (listed as positive on the Electronic Offering System form) was never communicated to the Deceased for him to consider the risks of proceeding with the transplantation, and for him to provide informed consent. 2 Recording of the CMV status – When the plan for the deceased’s surgery was communicated to the Renal transplant team in an email, this did not include reference to the donor’s CMV status, nor did it attach the relevant EOS form. Consideration should be given to introducing a process in which the EOS form itself is sent onwards to the Renal transplant team to ensure important information such as the CMV status is not missed by the treating clinicians. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services; Failure to reliably transfer complete information to transplant centres.

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 communicate donor kidney CMV status to the transplant recipient for informed consent

Wider context from the report

“1. The consent process – I found that the CMV status of the donor’s kidneys (listed as positive on the Electronic Offering System form) was never communicated to the Deceased for him to consider the risks of proceeding with the transplantation, and for him to provide informed consent. 2 Recording of the CMV status – When the plan for the deceased’s surgery was communicated to the Renal transplant team in an email, this did not include reference to the donor’s CMV status, nor did it attach the relevant EOS form. Consideration should be given to introducing a process in which the EOS form itself is sent onwards to the Renal transplant team to ensure important information such as the CMV status is not missed by the treating clinicians. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate informed-consent processes for medical treatment.

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

Strengthen transplant consent by specifically discussing and documenting donor-recipient CMV risks before transplantation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was acknowledged that the consent process regarding the communication of donor risks, particularly CMV status, needed to be more robust and comprehensive so that all recipients are fully informed before transplantation.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 18 October 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.8

  1. 1

    Use a new transplant operation-note template and responsible-consultant accuracy review to reduce documentation errors.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  2. 2

    Continue raising this case at improvement meetings and implementing improvements based on its learning.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  3. 3

    Operate a weekly multidisciplinary meeting to review virology results and develop management plans for patients with positive CMV results.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  4. 4

    Identify patients due to stop CMV prophylaxis, review weekly antiviral dosing reports, and send daily alerts for new renal-patient CMV-positive samples.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  5. 5

    Appoint a substantive transplant nephrologist to provide continuity and consultant-level oversight for patients with complex medical needs.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  6. 6

    Redesign renal transplant discharge summaries to include donor details and donor-recipient CMV status.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  7. 7

    Establish a fourth transplant nephrologist post, subject to business-case and funding review.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  8. 8

    Perform an independent post-transplant verification of donor and recipient documentation, including CMV status, with pharmacist cross-checking and documented results.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    A fourth transplant nephrologist post awaits business-case and funding review, preventing its immediate appointment.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 new transplant operation-note template and responsible-consultant accuracy review to reduce documentation errors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The renal transplant patient discharge summary letter was also redesigned to incorporate relevant donor details including the donor and recipient CMV status. This was to provide a further level of assurance and robustness in the communication processes. It was also identified that operation notes are completed at the end of complex surgery and could often be undertaken by on-call staff, therefore there was a further level of discretion to complete the operation of operation notes in order to reduce the risk of errors. I am able to confirm that following a review of the processes and systems in place, all transplant operation notes are commenced on a new operation template, so that there is no risk of transcription error. All operation notes are also reviewed by the responsible consultant after surgery for accuracy.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 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

Continue raising this case at improvement meetings and implementing improvements based on its learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust remains wholly committed to full implementation of the learning from this case, a case which is still raised and discussed at improvement meetings, and will continue to implement improvements based on the learning.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 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

Operate a weekly multidisciplinary meeting to review virology results and develop management plans for patients with positive CMV results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a further mechanism for the review and monitoring of the care of this complex cohort of patients, a weekly multi-disciplinary team meeting was established. This takes place on a Thursday afternoon and on review is working effectively and efficiently. Core attendees to the meeting include a Consultant Nephrologist, Consultant Virologist, Renal pharmacist and a senior nursing representative from the Transplant outpatients.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 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

Identify patients due to stop CMV prophylaxis, review weekly antiviral dosing reports, and send daily alerts for new renal-patient CMV-positive samples.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to support the appropriate provision of medication intervention, there is a process in place to identify for screening all patients due to stop prophylaxis; and the Pharmacy team generate a weekly report of those patients on CMV antiviral prophylaxis to confirm the appropriate dosing regime. This is further supported through the virology team sending daily alerts to the Renal team listing all new CMV positive samples from renal patients.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 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

Appoint a substantive transplant nephrologist to provide continuity and consultant-level oversight for patients with complex medical needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledge that the care of CMV patients can be complex and there is a requirement for expert overview and monitoring over an extended period of time for this cohort of patients. As a result of this, we undertook a review of the outpatient team and clinical follow up processes to look at creating continuity of care, and ensuring that there was overview of care at Transplant Nephrology Consultant level for patients with complex medical needs. In order to provide this in a robust and consistent way, a substantive post for a nephrologist with an interest in transplantation has been appointed to the Trust. A fourth nephrologist post for transplantation is planned and awaits business case and funding review.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 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

Redesign renal transplant discharge summaries to include donor details and donor-recipient CMV status.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The renal transplant patient discharge summary letter was also redesigned to incorporate relevant donor details including the donor and recipient CMV status. This was to provide a further level of assurance and robustness in the communication processes. It was also identified that operation notes are completed at the end of complex surgery and could often be undertaken by on-call staff, therefore there was a further level of discretion to complete the operation of operation notes in order to reduce the risk of errors. I am able to confirm that following a review of the processes and systems in place, all transplant operation notes are commenced on a new operation template, so that there is no risk of transcription error. All operation notes are also reviewed by the responsible consultant after surgery for accuracy.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 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

Establish a fourth transplant nephrologist post, subject to business-case and funding review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledge that the care of CMV patients can be complex and there is a requirement for expert overview and monitoring over an extended period of time for this cohort of patients. As a result of this, we undertook a review of the outpatient team and clinical follow up processes to look at creating continuity of care, and ensuring that there was overview of care at Transplant Nephrology Consultant level for patients with complex medical needs. In order to provide this in a robust and consistent way, a substantive post for a nephrologist with an interest in transplantation has been appointed to the Trust. A fourth nephrologist post for transplantation is planned and awaits business case and funding review.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 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

Perform an independent post-transplant verification of donor and recipient documentation, including CMV status, with pharmacist cross-checking and documented results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Mr Smith’s operation note had inaccuracies recorded with regard to donor kidney details as noted at Inquest. At the time of the transplant, some of the donor organ details were not available. In order to address this, a formal check process within 48 hours of transplantation and independent to the ward based team was implemented. This process is led by the Transplant Coordinators and includes a check of all donor and recipient documentation including the CMV status. This is then documented on the transplant flow chart. This process was reviewed after implementation, to ensure that it delivered the required assurance. Following this review, it was further amended in order to include the ward pharmacist providing a further independent check of the documentation as part of the established medication review process.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 18 October 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

A fourth transplant nephrologist post awaits business-case and funding review, preventing its immediate appointment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledge that the care of CMV patients can be complex and there is a requirement for expert overview and monitoring over an extended period of time for this cohort of patients. As a result of this, we undertook a review of the outpatient team and clinical follow up processes to look at creating continuity of care, and ensuring that there was overview of care at Transplant Nephrology Consultant level for patients with complex medical needs. In order to provide this in a robust and consistent way, a substantive post for a nephrologist with an interest in transplantation has been appointed to the Trust. A fourth nephrologist post for transplantation is planned and awaits business case and funding review.”

Source location

2019-0271-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 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