PFD report

Kevin John Gilbert · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Dec 2015•Central and South East Kent

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
3

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 raised3

  1. Lack of clarity about protocols for transfer of patients with aortic dissection
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to suspected aortic dissection
  2. Failure to escalate transfer acceptance decisions to a Consultant when requested
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior clinicians
  3. Delays in accepting transfer of suspected aortic dissection patients while awaiting CT imagery
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure timely transfer to an appropriate hospital care environmentPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to suspected aortic dissectionPart of recurring concern: Failure to safely coordinate transfer of urgent surgical patientsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency access to hospital carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable healthcare patient transfer processesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital acceptance arrangements for patients requiring 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.2

  1. Action

    Extend the open-door policy to ascending-aorta and arch dissections, enabling consultant-authorised immediate transfer with guaranteed theatre and critical-care capacity.

    Stated by Guy'S and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 December 2015.
  2. Action

    Clarify and reinforce to cardiothoracic registrars that aortic dissection referrals must be discussed immediately with the duty consultant, who decides transfer and any pre-transfer CT review.

    Stated by Guy'S and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 December 2015.

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

  1. Position

    Clarified consultant escalation and guaranteed immediate transfer arrangements are considered sufficient to prevent recurrence of confusion and delay.

    Stated by Guy'S and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 clarity about protocols for transfer of patients with aortic dissection

Wider context from the report

“• There appeared to be confusion on the part of ████████ as to the standing protocols at St Thomas’ Hospital concerning transfer of patients with a diagnosis of aortic dissection. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to suspected aortic dissection.

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 escalate transfer acceptance decisions to a Consultant when requested

Wider context from the report

“• It was not reasonable to decline ████████ request for the decision to accept Mr Gilbert to be escalated to a Consultant on the basis that ████████ was in theatre and unable to talk to ████████ ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior clinicians.

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 accepting transfer of suspected aortic dissection patients while awaiting CT imagery

Wider context from the report

“• Given that Mr Gilbert was presenting at William Harvey Hospital as an acute emergency requiring specialist surgery at a tertiary centre and that his diagnosis of suspicion made on presenting clinical symptoms by a Consultant in Accident and Emergency medicine which was confirmed by CT scan, it was not reasonable for ████████ to rely on his understanding of the procedure of accepting such patients and wait for the CT imagery before agreeing that he could be transferred. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure timely transfer to an appropriate hospital care environment; Failure to reliably recognise and respond to suspected aortic dissection; Failure to safely coordinate transfer of urgent surgical patients; Unreliable emergency access to hospital care; Unreliable healthcare patient transfer processes; Unreliable hospital acceptance arrangements for patients requiring 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

Extend the open-door policy to ascending-aorta and arch dissections, enabling consultant-authorised immediate transfer with guaranteed theatre and critical-care capacity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to make the Coroner aware of a more recent change to the management of dissection referrals at the Trust. It has always been the case that there is an ‘open door’ policy for leaking abdominal aortic aneurysms, meaning they are accepted by the vascular surgical team for immediate transfer if clinically appropriate, with a guarantee that theatre and critical care capacity will be made available. This approach has now been extended to include dissections of the ascending aorta and arch such as suffered by Mr Gilbert. Therefore, from May 2016, any such referral to this Trust will be discussed immediately with the duty consultant cardiac surgeon (as outlined above), who will then be able to authorise immediate transfer if clinically indicated, with that same guarantee that theatre and critical care capacity will be made available.”

Source location

Kevin-GILBERT-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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

Clarify and reinforce to cardiothoracic registrars that aortic dissection referrals must be discussed immediately with the duty consultant, who decides transfer and any pre-transfer CT review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In January 2015, shortly after Mr Gilbert died, the referring consultant wrote to Mr Avlonitis, consultant cardiothoracic surgeon and raised concerns about the delay in transfer. Following receipt of the letter Mr Avlonitis wrote to all registrars in the Cardiothoracic Department to clarify the department’s process for accepting dissection referrals. He confirmed that all such referrals must be discussed immediately with the duty consultant and any decision to ask to review CT imagery before transfer could only be made by a consultant. The text of the email is shown below.”

Source location

Kevin-GILBERT-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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

Clarified consultant escalation and guaranteed immediate transfer arrangements are considered sufficient to prevent recurrence of confusion and delay.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust is absolutely committed to learning from incidents and about how care can be improved and delivered more effectively. I am confident that following the email, and the reinforcement of the message by consultant staff, that all junior staff are completely clear that dissection referrals must be reviewed immediately by the duty consultant and they understand that the transfer decision must be made by a consultant.”

Source location

Kevin-GILBERT-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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

    Investigate the administrative failure that delayed handling the Coroner’s report to prevent recurrence.

    Stated by Guy'S and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 December 2015.

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

Investigate the administrative failure that delayed handling the Coroner’s report to prevent recurrence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I write in response to your report to prevent future deaths made under regulation 28 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 following the inquest into the death of Mr Gilbert on 2 December 2015. First I must apologise for the delay in this letter being sent to you, there has been an administrative failure in the Trust which meant that your letter did not get handled as it should have been, please accept my apologies for this, no discourtesy to the Court was intended and the failure is being investigated so that I can be assured it will not happen again.”

Source location

Kevin-GILBERT-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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