PFD report

Bryan Arnold CATANACH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Dec 2015•Worcestershire

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

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 raised5

  1. Failure of communication during inter-hospital transfers
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirementsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable healthcare patient transfer processesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
  2. Unsafe CT scanning of patients in traction without releasing traction weights
  3. Failure to provide adequate protection and supervision for patients with unstable neck fractures
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.6

  1. Action

    Enhance the internal equipment register to identify traction equipment held elsewhere.

    Stated by the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2015.
  2. Action

    Conduct CT examinations involving traction equipment under a refreshed standard operating policy.

    Stated by the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2015.
  3. Action

    Develop pictorial traction-equipment guidance and respond to related staff training and orientation needs.

    Stated by the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The Trust will not introduce a HDU-only arrival model because the strengthened spinal emergency bed and HDU escalation process is considered sufficient.

    Stated by the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital 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

Failure of communication during inter-hospital transfers

Wider context from the report

“(1) There were a number of difficulties with communication between the various clinicians and hospital Trusts. This led to a delay in the initial transfer of the patient, a delay in his subsequent review by a senior clinician and confusion on the part of nursing staff as to whether Mr Catanach was to be kept nil by mouth and/or given his prescribed medication. While it is a matter for you it may be that the Trust will want to reflect on whether there is a need to standardize its inter-hospital transfer process so that nursing as well as medical staff are fully engaged with the process. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirements; Unreliable healthcare patient transfer processes; Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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

Unsafe CT scanning of patients in traction without releasing traction weights

Wider context from the report

“(5) I heard evidence at the inquest that there was no safe and effective way of a patient in traction to have a CT scan without the traction weights being released. While I was told that only a small number of patients will require both traction and a CT scan it may be that the Trust considers that this is something that should be considered further. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 adequate protection and supervision for patients with unstable neck fractures

Wider context from the report

“(3) Almost immediately after his admission into the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital with a fracture dislocation of the neck Mr Catanach fell out of this hospital bed. This was probably due to him attempting to get up to use the toilet. Mr Catanach's fall took place even though two members of the nursing staff had expressly told Mr Catanach not to move and provided him with a buzzer through which to seek nursing assistance if required. Mr Newton-Ede, having reflected upon the matter, felt that similar patients in the future may be better protected by a transfer into the HDU rather than a standard ward. The Trust may wish to reflect on whether this is a realistic alternative. If implemented this change will need to be audited to see whether there are sufficient resources available within HDU. If not, an alternative course of action considered at inquest was that for the small number of patients admitted with an unstable neck fracture it may be appropriate immediately to arrange one to one nursing care pending operative fixation of the fracture. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Unavailability and poor identification of required traction equipment

Wider context from the report

“(4) Traction equipment - Mr Catanach had a halo crown fitted in an attempt to reduce the fracture he had suffered. At the time this was undertaken Mr Newton-Ede did not have available to him the required Balkan beam traction equipment and a Swan neck device was used instead. This was plainly inferior and indeed a pulley wheel was found to have jammed the following morning rendering the traction ineffective and causing the fracture to slip back. It took 48 hours for the correct traction equipment to be found. It was likely that the equipment was available the whole time but that either staff did not know where it was kept, or those sent to find it did not know for what they were looking. It is a matter for the Trust to reflect on how to remedy this situation. It would seem that training of relevant staff would be a sensible first step. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure essential clinical equipment and supplies are available and serviceable.

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 carry out Consultants' instructions and communicate when they cannot be carried out

Wider context from the report

“(2) Additional concerns over communication were identified with clear instructions from Consultants not being carried out. In particular, an instruction to have the deceased transferred to the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital before 08:00 hours on 5th February 2015 was cancelled (on the wrong basis that no spare bed was available) and the cancellation of the transfer was not communicated back to the consultant. Additionally, an instruction by the consultant to a junior doctor directing his Registrar to review Mr Catanach was only partly acted upon. This led to a delay in the senior review of Mr Catanach which, when it took place 9 hours after admission, recognised a deterioration in his condition. It is a matter for the Trust to reflect on how best to ensure that Consultants' instructions are fully acted upon and where, for whatever reason, that proves impossible, the situation is communicated back to the Consultant concerned. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably implement consultant clinical instructions.

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

Enhance the internal equipment register to identify traction equipment held elsewhere.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Traction Equipment Your own investigations correctly identified the challenges that had occurred in both identifying and securing the timely use of appropriate traction equipment. Since this incident, the Trust has expanded the range of spinal equipment held on site in the Trust and has created a central store for all traction apparatus. The Trust has also enhanced its internal register of equipment and in so doing, highlighted other sites around the hospital and beyond that hold similar equipment beyond that within our store. Finally, an enhanced pictorial training folder has been developed to allow staff, who may infrequently request spinal equipment, to recognise all of its contingent parts once delivered. The spinal services team have also responded to the issues around equipment training and orientation.”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 1 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

Conduct CT examinations involving traction equipment under a refreshed standard operating policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CT Scan under Traction The final point of concern raised with your Regulation 28 letter related to the technical inability of the Trust to undertake a CT diagnostic scan with a patient’s traction weights in-situ. Due to the nature of equipment this is an issue that would exist at every site operating a CT scanner. Current technology does not allow for such examinations with weight equipment. Whilst I am unable to assure you as to any regularised mitigation for such examination; each case being considered on its”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 1 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

Develop pictorial traction-equipment guidance and respond to related staff training and orientation needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Traction Equipment Your own investigations correctly identified the challenges that had occurred in both identifying and securing the timely use of appropriate traction equipment. Since this incident, the Trust has expanded the range of spinal equipment held on site in the Trust and has created a central store for all traction apparatus. The Trust has also enhanced its internal register of equipment and in so doing, highlighted other sites around the hospital and beyond that hold similar equipment beyond that within our store. Finally, an enhanced pictorial training folder has been developed to allow staff, who may infrequently request spinal equipment, to recognise all of its contingent parts once delivered. The spinal services team have also responded to the issues around equipment training and orientation.”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 1 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

Expand on-site spinal equipment and establish a central store for traction apparatus.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Traction Equipment Your own investigations correctly identified the challenges that had occurred in both identifying and securing the timely use of appropriate traction equipment. Since this incident, the Trust has expanded the range of spinal equipment held on site in the Trust and has created a central store for all traction apparatus. The Trust has also enhanced its internal register of equipment and in so doing, highlighted other sites around the hospital and beyond that hold similar equipment beyond that within our store. Finally, an enhanced pictorial training folder has been developed to allow staff, who may infrequently request spinal equipment, to recognise all of its contingent parts once delivered. The spinal services team have also responded to the issues around equipment training and orientation.”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 1 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

Refresh and simplify proforma-based documentation for nursing and medical multidisciplinary teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additional concerns over communications Following apparent communication and messaging issues identified in this case, Mr Newton-Ede has led a piece of work to refresh and simplify proforma based documentation. Both nursing and medical members of the multi-disciplinary team have been involved in delivering this change. There is a clearly held view from clinical colleagues that these developments have already been seen to be positively impacting on improved communication flow and necessary escalation.”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 1 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

Refresh and reaffirm emergency patient receiving and first-line management processes, including a ring-fenced spinal emergency bed and HDU escalation route.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Difficulties with communication between various clinicians and hospital Trusts. The Trust has looked to progress improved communication routes and systems in preparedness for the receipt of an emergency/unscheduled patient. As was explained within your Court, ROH acts as a regional centre for a range of spinal emergencies. Broadly speaking two to three spinal emergencies are transferred into the ROH each week for emergency elective care. Following this court hearing, the Trust has refreshed and reaffirmed its receiving and first line management processes in preparedness for the arrival of such patients. The Trust robustly pursues the ring fencing of a single spinal emergency bed and this provides a guaranteed safe point of arrival for any inbound emergency patient.”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 1 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

The Trust will not introduce a HDU-only arrival model because the strengthened spinal emergency bed and HDU escalation process is considered sufficient.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Future patients protected from fall by transfer to HDU at point of arrival As noted earlier within my letter rather than moving forward with Mr Newton-Ede’s personal suggestion regarding potential direct admission to HDU, the Trust considered it both more clinically appropriate and an easier structure to maintain a position of standardised practice and quality to strengthen and reaffirm the use of the spinal emergency bed or HDU escalation bed. Working with a wider group of clinical colleagues the Trust has therefore consciously decided not to introduce a HDU only arrival model. I would however note no new concerns have been identified since the strengthening of this process.”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 1 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

Current technology prevents CT scanning with traction weights in situ, so regularised mitigation cannot be assured.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CT Scan under Traction The final point of concern raised with your Regulation 28 letter related to the technical inability of the Trust to undertake a CT diagnostic scan with a patient’s traction weights in-situ. Due to the nature of equipment this is an issue that would exist at every site operating a CT scanner. Current technology does not allow for such examinations with weight equipment. Whilst I am unable to assure you as to any regularised mitigation for such examination; each case being considered on its”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 1 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

    Pilot a consultant-of-the-week on-call model across spinal services.

    Stated by the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 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

Pilot a consultant-of-the-week on-call model across spinal services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As is common place in many hospitals, the Trust maintains a consultant on-call rota for the receipt and management of emergency referrals. Historically this rota and others across similar specialist services has been provided by a single consultant surgeon over a 24 hour period. You may be familiar, but there exists a national emerging model to have a ‘consultant of the week’, within such a model the nominated receiving specialist provides on-call services for either 5 or 7 consecutive days. Based on learning from Mr Catanach’s case the Trust has started to pilot a ‘consultant of the week’ model across spinal services. Whilst not fully embedded as an agreed model of future working, early output from the pilot is very favourable for longer term working.”

Source location

Bryan-Catanach-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 1 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