PFD report

Michael Robert Collins · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Oct 2020•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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. Failure to make report receipt by the appropriate clinician apparent to the reporting radiologist
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable radiology processes for communicating findings and initiating required follow-up
  2. Failure of the results-routing system to send results to the referring clinician
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon
  3. Failure of the results-routing system to prevent sending results to uninvolved doctors
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon
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

Failure to make report receipt by the appropriate clinician apparent to the reporting radiologist

Wider context from the report

“1. The Inquest heard evidence that the current CERNER system does not always ensure that results are sent through to the referring clinician. The Inquest heard evidence of a “quirk” in the system whereby results will be sent through to doctors who have no involvement in the patient's care. 2. The Inquest heard evidence that radiologists can now drop reports into a folder where there are unexpected and significant radiological findings. There is a specific folder relating to the finding of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The radiologist however raised a concern at the Inquest that it is not easily apparent to the reporting radiologist that the report has reached the appropriate clinician. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable radiology processes for communicating findings and initiating required follow-up.

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 of the results-routing system to send results to the referring clinician

Wider context from the report

“1. The Inquest heard evidence that the current CERNER system does not always ensure that results are sent through to the referring clinician. The Inquest heard evidence of a “quirk” in the system whereby results will be sent through to doctors who have no involvement in the patient's care. 2. The Inquest heard evidence that radiologists can now drop reports into a folder where there are unexpected and significant radiological findings. There is a specific folder relating to the finding of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The radiologist however raised a concern at the Inquest that it is not easily apparent to the reporting radiologist that the report has reached the appropriate clinician. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon.

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 of the results-routing system to prevent sending results to uninvolved doctors

Wider context from the report

“1. The Inquest heard evidence that the current CERNER system does not always ensure that results are sent through to the referring clinician. The Inquest heard evidence of a “quirk” in the system whereby results will be sent through to doctors who have no involvement in the patient's care. 2. The Inquest heard evidence that radiologists can now drop reports into a folder where there are unexpected and significant radiological findings. There is a specific folder relating to the finding of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The radiologist however raised a concern at the Inquest that it is not easily apparent to the reporting radiologist that the report has reached the appropriate clinician. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon.

Open source report

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

    Improve the process for notifying unexpected and significant imaging findings and incorporate it into the Trust standard operating procedure.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 March 2021.
  2. 2

    Develop and implement a respiratory-team procedure requiring prompt review of investigation results, including when the requesting clinician is absent.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 March 2021.

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

Improve the process for notifying unexpected and significant imaging findings and incorporate it into the Trust standard operating procedure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the second matter of concern The trust Divisional Director for Imaging has reviewed the processes used to notify unexpected and significant findings in consultation with the Clinical Director for Imaging at Whipps Cross. The system has been improved and is now formally incorporated within the trust Standard Operating Procedure.”

Source location

2021-0092-Response-from-Royal-London-Hospital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2021

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

Develop and implement a respiratory-team procedure requiring prompt review of investigation results, including when the requesting clinician is absent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the first matter of concern The respiratory team have developed a Standard Operating Procedure to ensure that all investigation results are reviewed promptly, including when the person who requested the investigation is not at work.”

Source location

2021-0092-Response-from-Royal-London-Hospital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2021

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