PFD report

Mrs Sarah Poole · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 May 2017•Black Country

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
5

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 take previous abnormal ECG results into account during paramedic handover
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon
  2. Failure to record and endorse the reviewing doctor’s name on ECGs
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation and authentication of ECG review
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.4

  1. Action

    Summarise electronic ambulance handover information into one or two sheets and attach it to emergency department documentation.

    Stated by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 August 2017.
  2. Action

    Incorporate a clinician confirmation that pre-hospital information was reviewed into the emergency department discharge documentation.

    Stated by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 August 2017.
  3. Action

    Audit compliance with the emergency department discharge checklist monthly.

    Stated by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 August 2017.

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 take previous abnormal ECG results into account during paramedic handover

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that there were failures to record and endorse the name of the Doctor reviewing the ECG and a failure to take into account previous abnormal ECG results during the handover from the paramedic staff. ”

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 to record and endorse the reviewing doctor’s name on ECGs

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that there were failures to record and endorse the name of the Doctor reviewing the ECG and a failure to take into account previous abnormal ECG results during the handover from the paramedic staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable documentation and authentication of ECG review.

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

Summarise electronic ambulance handover information into one or two sheets and attach it to emergency department documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to the ambulance handover there have been problems with the new electronic handover system producing lengthy documents. However, we have now introduced a way of summarising this information into 1 to 2 sheets which will be printed off and attached to the ED patient documentation. To ensure that medical staff review this information we have included in the discharge checklist (shared at the inquest) a statement which will ask the clinician to confirm that they have read the pre-hospital information. The checklist has been agreed by the Senior Team in ED and is in the process of being incorporated electronically into the printed element of ED patient documentation. We cannot confirm at this time the exact implementation date but it will be within the next month, and along with the ECG process we plan to audit the compliance with the discharge checklist on a monthly basis.”

Source location

2017-0176-Response-by-The-Royal-Wolverhampton-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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

Incorporate a clinician confirmation that pre-hospital information was reviewed into the emergency department discharge documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to the ambulance handover there have been problems with the new electronic handover system producing lengthy documents. However, we have now introduced a way of summarising this information into 1 to 2 sheets which will be printed off and attached to the ED patient documentation. To ensure that medical staff review this information we have included in the discharge checklist (shared at the inquest) a statement which will ask the clinician to confirm that they have read the pre-hospital information. The checklist has been agreed by the Senior Team in ED and is in the process of being incorporated electronically into the printed element of ED patient documentation. We cannot confirm at this time the exact implementation date but it will be within the next month, and along with the ECG process we plan to audit the compliance with the discharge checklist on a monthly basis.”

Source location

2017-0176-Response-by-The-Royal-Wolverhampton-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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

Audit compliance with the emergency department discharge checklist monthly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to the ambulance handover there have been problems with the new electronic handover system producing lengthy documents. However, we have now introduced a way of summarising this information into 1 to 2 sheets which will be printed off and attached to the ED patient documentation. To ensure that medical staff review this information we have included in the discharge checklist (shared at the inquest) a statement which will ask the clinician to confirm that they have read the pre-hospital information. The checklist has been agreed by the Senior Team in ED and is in the process of being incorporated electronically into the printed element of ED patient documentation. We cannot confirm at this time the exact implementation date but it will be within the next month, and along with the ECG process we plan to audit the compliance with the discharge checklist on a monthly basis.”

Source location

2017-0176-Response-by-The-Royal-Wolverhampton-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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

Require Senior Decision Makers to review and sign off all ECGs, and audit compliance monthly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Emergency Department has instigated a policy that all ECGs must be reviewed and signed off by a Senior Decision Maker, i.e. a middle grade Doctor or Consultant.”

Source location

2017-0176-Response-by-The-Royal-Wolverhampton-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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

    Implement and reinforce an approved algorithm for managing abnormal ECGs through induction, nurse briefings, safety briefings and posters.

    Stated by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 August 2017.

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

Implement and reinforce an approved algorithm for managing abnormal ECGs through induction, nurse briefings, safety briefings and posters.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The department has also developed an algorithm for how to manage an abnormal ECG, which has been approved by the Consultant Body and will be taken to the departmental Governance Meeting for ratification and will be in place for the next Junior Induction in August 2017. This process will be reinforced during a “Focus Fortnight” for Nurses during July 2017. Also, the message will be delivered using the Departmental Safety Briefings twice daily as a way of reinforcing the new process. This will also be backed up by posters describing the new process.”

Source location

2017-0176-Response-by-The-Royal-Wolverhampton-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026