PFD report

Nisren Abdul-Karim · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Sep 2024•Manchester South

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
0

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. Insufficient detail in neurology notes to communicate advice and clinical contact
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording and confirmation of specialist clinical advice
  2. Failure to store neurology notes in the patient record in an accessible location
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe care
  3. Absence of a face-to-face neurology service at some sites
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient neurology service capacity for timely specialist assessment
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    Rochdale does not require inpatient neurology ward reviews because it is non-acute and has no demand; 24/7 on-call neurology advice remains available.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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

Insufficient detail in neurology notes to communicate advice and clinical contact

Wider context from the report

“The evidence before the inquest was that the neurology service based at Salford Royal Hospital provided a service across Greater Manchester. However the notes kept by the neurology team were not stored on the patient’s notes but recorded on patient pass. This meant accessing the notes required recognising that patient pass needed to be accessed. In addition the evidence was that the detail within the neurology notes on patient pass was very limited and meant that it was difficult to fully understand the neurology advice given or the contact that there had been with neurology. As a consequence delivery of neurology care was disjointed and meant there was no clear neurology overview held by neurology. This impacted on the care that could be provided to patients and the provision of advice to other clinicians. Illustrative of this one neurologist was unaware that it was one of their neurology colleagues had diagnosed a neuro degenerative disease. This is exacerbated in relation to sites such as Trafford Hospital where all contact with neurology is telephone or patient pass as there is no face to face neurology service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable recording and confirmation of specialist clinical advice.

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 store neurology notes in the patient record in an accessible location

Wider context from the report

“The evidence before the inquest was that the neurology service based at Salford Royal Hospital provided a service across Greater Manchester. However the notes kept by the neurology team were not stored on the patient’s notes but recorded on patient pass. This meant accessing the notes required recognising that patient pass needed to be accessed. In addition the evidence was that the detail within the neurology notes on patient pass was very limited and meant that it was difficult to fully understand the neurology advice given or the contact that there had been with neurology. As a consequence delivery of neurology care was disjointed and meant there was no clear neurology overview held by neurology. This impacted on the care that could be provided to patients and the provision of advice to other clinicians. Illustrative of this one neurologist was unaware that it was one of their neurology colleagues had diagnosed a neuro degenerative disease. This is exacerbated in relation to sites such as Trafford Hospital where all contact with neurology is telephone or patient pass as there is no face to face neurology service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe care.

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

Absence of a face-to-face neurology service at some sites

Wider context from the report

“The evidence before the inquest was that the neurology service based at Salford Royal Hospital provided a service across Greater Manchester. However the notes kept by the neurology team were not stored on the patient’s notes but recorded on patient pass. This meant accessing the notes required recognising that patient pass needed to be accessed. In addition the evidence was that the detail within the neurology notes on patient pass was very limited and meant that it was difficult to fully understand the neurology advice given or the contact that there had been with neurology. As a consequence delivery of neurology care was disjointed and meant there was no clear neurology overview held by neurology. This impacted on the care that could be provided to patients and the provision of advice to other clinicians. Illustrative of this one neurologist was unaware that it was one of their neurology colleagues had diagnosed a neuro degenerative disease. This is exacerbated in relation to sites such as Trafford Hospital where all contact with neurology is telephone or patient pass as there is no face to face neurology service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient neurology service capacity for timely specialist assessment.

Open source report

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

Rochdale does not require inpatient neurology ward reviews because it is non-acute and has no demand; 24/7 on-call neurology advice remains available.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The neurology team provide ward reviews to all GM hospital sites. This is with the exception of Rochdale. As Rochdale is not an acute site, there has never been the demand for neurology inpatient reviews. Any site can always access Neurology opinion via the on-call service 24/7, and advice will be provided. Requests for ward reviews come through Patient Pass. There is currently variation in process in terms of on-going documentation after that initial request via the system. In some cases, on-going clinical advice is continued on Patient Pass (akin to how this works for on-going neurosurgical or spinal advice through the same system). This requires local hospital-based clinicians to access Patient Pass to see the documentation. In other cases, on-going clinical advice is written in the local hospital site’s notes, on whatever system exists on that site for this.”

Source location

Response from GMIC
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 2024

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