PFD report

Margaret Rose Toye · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Dec 2021•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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
0

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. Inaccurate recording of MUST malnutrition risk scores
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of malnutrition risk
  2. Failure to assess all patients for malnutrition risk using the MUST score system
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of malnutrition risk
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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

Inaccurate recording of MUST malnutrition risk scores

Wider context from the report

“1. Following admission, Mrs Toye was not assessed for risks of malnutrition by use of the MUST score system. Such an assessment was required for all patients. Erroneously, her notes recorded that she scored 0 on the MUST scale which meant that no other staff members began an assessment throughout her admission. It is likely that during admission Mrs Toye would have scored 4 on a MUST assessment, as such a number of mitigations would have been introduced to maximise her nutritional intake. 2. Contemporary audits of compliance of Must scoring on the ward in question demonstrate that one in ten patients are not being assessed for risks of malnutrition. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of malnutrition risk.

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 assess all patients for malnutrition risk using the MUST score system

Wider context from the report

“1. Following admission, Mrs Toye was not assessed for risks of malnutrition by use of the MUST score system. Such an assessment was required for all patients. Erroneously, her notes recorded that she scored 0 on the MUST scale which meant that no other staff members began an assessment throughout her admission. It is likely that during admission Mrs Toye would have scored 4 on a MUST assessment, as such a number of mitigations would have been introduced to maximise her nutritional intake. 2. Contemporary audits of compliance of Must scoring on the ward in question demonstrate that one in ten patients are not being assessed for risks of malnutrition. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of malnutrition risk.

Open source report
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
0/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.