PFD report

John Graham ALSTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Dec 2025•Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised3

  1. Reactive determination of the funding ICB when additional care or changes are required
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable funding responsibility and referral arrangements for required care
  2. Delays in accessing increased funding, support, services or suitable placements
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide clear, accessible routes to care and funding for people with complex health and social needsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable funding responsibility and referral arrangements for required care
  3. Failure to identify and communicate the commissioning service responsible for a resident
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete and unreliable information about carers and care arrangements
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Information-sharing difficulties and clearer communication of commissioning responsibility should be addressed and implemented by the involved ICBs, rather than NHS England.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Reactive determination of the funding ICB when additional care or changes are required

Wider context from the report

“1. ████████ had been moved to the Lancashire ICB commissioning area by a Bolton (Greater Manchester) commissioning service due to the existence of care home with a place for him (care home one). His placement at that care home broke down and he was taken to the local accident and emergency department. ████████ remained in hospital for some time and was then discharged to care home two where the circumstances resulted in Mr Alston's death occurred. It was quickly apparent that care home two could not meet ████████ needs and this was escalated to the Lancashire ICB. However the care home had first been directed to the Bolton (Greater Manchester) authorities by the local hospital. There was confusion as to which ICB was the commissioning body. This resulted in work being carried out by Lancashire ICB which ought to have been completed by the Bolton (Greater Manchester) ICB and a delay in commencing a search for an alternative and safe placement for ████████. There were also difficulties in sharing information for discharge processes because it was unclear which area or from where ████████ had come. This inquest concluded that due to the complexity of ████████ presentation, the delays due to confusion about ICB identification did not contribute to Mr Alston's death occurring at the time at which it did. However, I am concerned that there may be other cases where inaccurate or unknown information about which commissioning service is responsible for a resident can result in delays to accessing increased funding for support, services or more suitable placements. I am concerned that these delays may result in future deaths and that a clearer system is necessary to identify at an early stage and appropriately communicate that to a home who accepts a resident. I am concerned that determination of funding ICB arises on a reactive basis when additional care or changes are required and thus the time taken to resolve the issue causes necessary care or changes when proactive determination of the issue before problems arise ought to be possible. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable funding responsibility and referral arrangements for required care.

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

Delays in accessing increased funding, support, services or suitable placements

Wider context from the report

“1. ████████ had been moved to the Lancashire ICB commissioning area by a Bolton (Greater Manchester) commissioning service due to the existence of care home with a place for him (care home one). His placement at that care home broke down and he was taken to the local accident and emergency department. ████████ remained in hospital for some time and was then discharged to care home two where the circumstances resulted in Mr Alston's death occurred. It was quickly apparent that care home two could not meet ████████ needs and this was escalated to the Lancashire ICB. However the care home had first been directed to the Bolton (Greater Manchester) authorities by the local hospital. There was confusion as to which ICB was the commissioning body. This resulted in work being carried out by Lancashire ICB which ought to have been completed by the Bolton (Greater Manchester) ICB and a delay in commencing a search for an alternative and safe placement for ████████. There were also difficulties in sharing information for discharge processes because it was unclear which area or from where ████████ had come. This inquest concluded that due to the complexity of ████████ presentation, the delays due to confusion about ICB identification did not contribute to Mr Alston's death occurring at the time at which it did. However, I am concerned that there may be other cases where inaccurate or unknown information about which commissioning service is responsible for a resident can result in delays to accessing increased funding for support, services or more suitable placements. I am concerned that these delays may result in future deaths and that a clearer system is necessary to identify at an early stage and appropriately communicate that to a home who accepts a resident. I am concerned that determination of funding ICB arises on a reactive basis when additional care or changes are required and thus the time taken to resolve the issue causes necessary care or changes when proactive determination of the issue before problems arise ought to be possible. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide clear, accessible routes to care and funding for people with complex health and social needs; Unreliable funding responsibility and referral arrangements for required care.

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 identify and communicate the commissioning service responsible for a resident

Wider context from the report

“1. ████████ had been moved to the Lancashire ICB commissioning area by a Bolton (Greater Manchester) commissioning service due to the existence of care home with a place for him (care home one). His placement at that care home broke down and he was taken to the local accident and emergency department. ████████ remained in hospital for some time and was then discharged to care home two where the circumstances resulted in Mr Alston's death occurred. It was quickly apparent that care home two could not meet ████████ needs and this was escalated to the Lancashire ICB. However the care home had first been directed to the Bolton (Greater Manchester) authorities by the local hospital. There was confusion as to which ICB was the commissioning body. This resulted in work being carried out by Lancashire ICB which ought to have been completed by the Bolton (Greater Manchester) ICB and a delay in commencing a search for an alternative and safe placement for ████████. There were also difficulties in sharing information for discharge processes because it was unclear which area or from where ████████ had come. This inquest concluded that due to the complexity of ████████ presentation, the delays due to confusion about ICB identification did not contribute to Mr Alston's death occurring at the time at which it did. However, I am concerned that there may be other cases where inaccurate or unknown information about which commissioning service is responsible for a resident can result in delays to accessing increased funding for support, services or more suitable placements. I am concerned that these delays may result in future deaths and that a clearer system is necessary to identify at an early stage and appropriately communicate that to a home who accepts a resident. I am concerned that determination of funding ICB arises on a reactive basis when additional care or changes are required and thus the time taken to resolve the issue causes necessary care or changes when proactive determination of the issue before problems arise ought to be possible. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete and unreliable information about carers and care arrangements.

Open source report

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

Information-sharing difficulties and clearer communication of commissioning responsibility should be addressed and implemented by the involved ICBs, rather than NHS England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The concerns raised in your Report around the difficulties in information sharing and the delays in identifying the responsible ICB would be best addressed by the ICBs involved, rather than NHS England. In particular, it would be for the ICBs to comment upon how they could implement a clearer system to appropriately communicate the position around commissioning responsibility to care homes, where a new resident has moved areas.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 December 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.1

  1. 1

    Discuss all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across national and regional NHS teams.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 December 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

Discuss all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across national and regional NHS teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Graham, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 15 December 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