PFD report

Geoffrey Duke · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 May 2019•Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

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
5

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 5 recipients

Stated actions
14

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 consider pacemaker box change as a potential source of infection
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable investigation of serious infection causes
  2. Failure to provide a referral process for patients who become unwell after pacemaker surgery
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.12

  1. Action

    Review the case and discuss its learning at a clinical governance meeting.

    Stated by Darwin Medical PracticeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2019.
  2. Action

    Consider infection arising from pacemaker leads as a possible cause in future similar presentations.

    Stated by Darwin Medical PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 September 2019.
  3. Action

    Review endocarditis guidelines to confirm coverage of device-related infection and endocarditis.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2019.

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

  1. Position

    The infection could not have been identified earlier within primary care because symptoms were nonspecific and appropriate steps were taken.

    Stated by Darwin Medical PracticeDisputes 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

Failure to consider pacemaker box change as a potential source of infection

Wider context from the report

“Mr. Duke underwent pacemaker box change on 15th June 2016. He was subsequently unwell on a number of occasions. He visited Good Hope Hospital on 6th February 2017, his GP on a number of occasions and Burton Queens Hospital in August 2017. No consideration appears to have been given that the pacemaker box change may have been the source of his undiagnosed infections. No referral was made to a Cardiologist. His problem was diagnosed on his first admission on 27th October 2017. At inquest there was no evidence of a referral process for patients having undergone pacemaker surgery who subsequently become unwell. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable investigation of serious infection causes.

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 provide a referral process for patients who become unwell after pacemaker surgery

Wider context from the report

“Mr. Duke underwent pacemaker box change on 15th June 2016. He was subsequently unwell on a number of occasions. He visited Good Hope Hospital on 6th February 2017, his GP on a number of occasions and Burton Queens Hospital in August 2017. No consideration appears to have been given that the pacemaker box change may have been the source of his undiagnosed infections. No referral was made to a Cardiologist. His problem was diagnosed on his first admission on 27th October 2017. At inquest there was no evidence of a referral process for patients having undergone pacemaker surgery who subsequently become unwell. ”

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

Review the case and discuss its learning at a clinical governance meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The clinicians at Darwin Medical Practice have met and discussed in depth this case on Thursday 20 June 2019, as part of our regular Clinical Governance Meeting.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-Darwin-Medical-Practice
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 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

Consider infection arising from pacemaker leads as a possible cause in future similar presentations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As the GP who was responsible for seeing Mr Duke during most of his visits to the surgery ahead of his death, I have been tasked to write this report, advocated by the coroner at his inquest, given that it was felt there needs to be a structured plan to consider this possibility, should there be any further future instance thereof in any other individual.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-Darwin-Medical-Practice
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 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

Review endocarditis guidelines to confirm coverage of device-related infection and endocarditis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having reviewed our referral process to our cardiology teams, we are satisfied that we have in place an effective referral process as a result of your report we have undertaken a review of our endocarditis guidelines to ensure they are robust and we are assured that our guidelines are comprehensive and include specific reference to device related infection and endocarditis and therefore do not require any amendment.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 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

Update pacemaker patient leaflets with instructions to seek medical attention and alert clinicians when fever exceeds 38°C.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also reviewed the patient information leaflets which are provided to all patients following pacemaker insertion. The leaflets already contain information on symptoms which might represent possible infection and provide details of who the patient should contact if they are concerned. Whilst we are satisfied that the information leaflets contain sufficient information for patients, we will be updating them to include additional instructions where patients have symptoms of possible infection, in particular the leaflet will indicate that if the patient has a fever and temperature above 38 degrees Celsius, then they should a) seek medical attention and b) inform their treating clinician that they have a pacemaker and that device related endocarditis should be considered. Our aim is to update the leaflets by the beginning of November 2019.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 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

Deliver grand-round education to acute physicians on recognising pacemaker-related endocarditis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our review of the literature suggests that one of the key issues in the delay in diagnosing device related endocarditis is a lack of awareness amongst both patients and acute physicians.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 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

Circulate a Lesson of the Month email to staff on pacemaker-related endocarditis signs and symptoms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will also be sending out a 'Lesson of the Month' which is an email which goes out to all staff with the aim to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of pacemaker related endocarditis. This will be circulated within the next 4 weeks.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 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

Disseminate the approved guideline through the intranet and divisional clinical leadership meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The final draft and final signoff in conjunction with a communication plan will be complete by 30th September 2019. Once sign off has been completed, the guidelines will be accessible to all staff through the Trust's intranet (called 'Flo'). In addition, the Divisional Medical Director and Divisional Nursing Director will ensure that this information is disseminated to all Clinical”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Derby-and-Burton-NHS-Trust_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 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

Share inquest learning with the Department of Medicine to raise staff awareness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The development of this guideline supports the previous learning board shared with all Doctors in the Department of Medicine and the discussion at the Acute Medicine Mortality meeting in May 2019, in raising awareness with the relevant teams. For ease, I have also enclosed a further copy of the learning board (appendix 2), Statement of ████████ (appendix 3) and SI report (appendix 4) to confirm the steps that the Trust is taking.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Derby-and-Burton-NHS-Trust_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 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

Review organisational guidance for identifying and diagnosing cardiac rhythm device infections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has shared the learning from the inquest with the department of medicine to raise awareness. This has been supported by a review of the guidance available to clinicians, within the Organisation, relating to the identification and diagnosis of infection associated with a cardiac rhythm device. Following this review guidance has been developed and will be linked to the guidance relating to pyrexia of unknown origin.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Derby-and-Burton-NHS-Trust_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 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

Complete governance approval of the cardiac device infection guideline.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that the enclosed (appendix 1) Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Lead Infection Microbiology Hospital Guideline has been developed by the Antimicrobial Pharmacist, Cardiology Consultants and Microbiology Consultants. The document provides guidance on the detection and treatment of Subacute Bacterial Endocarditis (SBE) related to cardiac rhythm devices. This is now subject to the Trust's governance process to formally sign the guidance off.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Derby-and-Burton-NHS-Trust_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 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

Link the cardiac device infection guideline to existing pyrexia-of-unknown-origin guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Once formally signed off, this guidance will be linked to the Trust's existing guidance for Pyrexia of Unknown Origin (PUO) as guidance for patients presenting with pyrexia (temperature) of unknown origin with a cardiac rhythm device in place.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Derby-and-Burton-NHS-Trust_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 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

Highlight the learning and related guidelines in the monthly Patient Safety Brief newsletter.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This will be further supported at the Trust-wide Quality Summit on 26 September 2019 where ████████ with discuss this case and the learning that has been undertaken. It is hoped that aspects of the summit will be captured on videos and podcasts that will be available on Flo. Finally, ████████ will also highlight this learning within his monthly 'Patient Safety Brief' newsletter (August 2019) that is sent to all staff to further highlight the guidelines and the learning following this case.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Derby-and-Burton-NHS-Trust_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 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

The infection could not have been identified earlier within primary care because symptoms were nonspecific and appropriate steps were taken.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The practice shared the information from HM Coroner and looked back, in detail, through Mr Duke’s medical record. It was agreed that this was an extremely unusual occurrence. It was agreed that the clinicians concerned in Primary Care had made all appropriate steps to try and elucidate. However, during his attendances at the surgery, there could be seen no way that this could have been picked up earlier within Primary Care. Mr Duke had attended on a number of occasions with relatively non-specific symptoms of malaise, with the only finding being of raised inflammatory markers; rightly this had been noted and documented and was being addressed and followed up. In fact, at the last time he was seen at the surgery, he had improved in himself, as indeed had these clinical markers. It was noted that he was concurrently having hospital admissions and attendances.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-Darwin-Medical-Practice
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 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

Responsibility for the final diagnosis lay probably more within secondary care than primary care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Given the rareness and the unexpected nature of the eventual outcome, the learning from this in Primary Care was that this is now perceived as a possibility, where it may not have been considered before; the cause for Mr Duke’s malaise. It was felt the remit for the final diagnosis lay probably more within Secondary Care, but that the lesson to be learned from this was that situations, even as unusual as this, are possible and should be considered if any future similar scenario.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-Darwin-Medical-Practice
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 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

Existing patient leaflets are considered sufficient regarding infection symptoms and contact details, although additional fever instructions will be added.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also reviewed the patient information leaflets which are provided to all patients following pacemaker insertion. The leaflets already contain information on symptoms which might represent possible infection and provide details of who the patient should contact if they are concerned. Whilst we are satisfied that the information leaflets contain sufficient information for patients, we will be updating them to include additional instructions where patients have symptoms of possible infection, in particular the leaflet will indicate that if the patient has a fever and temperature above 38 degrees Celsius, then they should a) seek medical attention and b) inform their treating clinician that they have a pacemaker and that device related endocarditis should be considered. Our aim is to update the leaflets by the beginning of November 2019.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 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

The existing cardiology referral process across all sites is considered effective for patients presenting with suspected acute cardiac problems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Cardiology referral for unwell patients who have undergone pacemaker procedure”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 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

The existing endocarditis guidelines are considered comprehensive, including device-related infection and endocarditis, and require no amendment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Action Plan”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 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.2

  1. 1

    Continue auditing pacemaker implant and device-change infection rates.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 September 2019.
  2. 2

    Discuss the case and associated learning at the Trust-wide Quality Summit.

    Stated by The TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 September 2019.

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 auditing pacemaker implant and device-change infection rates.

Verbatim wording from the response

“University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has carefully considered the concerns raised within your report to prevent future deaths. Before I address the specific concern you raise, I would like to provide some detail as to the number of pacemakers placed within our Trust and the outcome of an audit that has been undertaken which includes the incidence of pacemaker related infection.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 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

Discuss the case and associated learning at the Trust-wide Quality Summit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This will be further supported at the Trust-wide Quality Summit on 26 September 2019 where ████████ with discuss this case and the learning that has been undertaken. It is hoped that aspects of the summit will be captured on videos and podcasts that will be available on Flo. Finally, ████████ will also highlight this learning within his monthly 'Patient Safety Brief' newsletter (August 2019) that is sent to all staff to further highlight the guidelines and the learning following this case.”

Source location

2019-0256-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Derby-and-Burton-NHS-Trust_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 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
3/5

Data last updated 7 September 2026