PFD report

Stephen Frederick DULLING · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Oct 2024•North Yorkshire and York

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
10

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
12

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 raised10

  1. Failure to assess and escalate refusal of intravenous fluids
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe intravenous fluid managementPart of recurring concern: Unsafe management of refusal of necessary care or protective action
  2. Failure to establish whether an assessed risk of harm had increased and required emergency intervention
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable crisis team care provision
  3. Failure to explain anticipated police assistance
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination of mental health crisis responses
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.10

  1. Action

    Present the case to the Trust Urgent Care Board to address learning from the incident.

    Stated by Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 October 2024.
  2. Action

    Share incident learning across Trust clinical networks and the Organisational Learning Group to reinforce clear communication about contacting police.

    Stated by Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 October 2024.
  3. Action

    Carry out quality-improvement work addressing poor compliance with nutritional assessment and food-chart requirements.

    Stated by York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 October 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Police advice was correct because violence and aggression required an emergency response with police powers, rather than Crisis Team intervention alone.

    Stated by Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 assess and escalate refusal of intravenous fluids

Wider context from the report

“4. I heard evidence of a number of omissions and lapses in the care afforded Mr Dulling by registered nurses during his admission to York District Hospital. My concerns relate to the following findings – a) No evidence of any direct inquiry being made of Mr Dulling’s primary carer in respect of his nutritional needs, despite Mr Dulling being deemed to lack capacity; b) It being recorded and acted upon that a regular diet was appropriate for Mr Dulling, despite a) above; c) No food chart being implemented and maintained despite the outcome of Mr Dulling’s malnutrition risk assessment; d) No assessment or escalation of Mr Dulling’s refusal of intravenous fluids; e) Evidence of a delayed response by a staff nurse to the information that Mr Dulling was choking; f) The absence of a de-brief of staff involved in the choking incident by a nurse of the requisite level within the period of 72 hours after the event. This, together with the subsequent delay in undertaking and completing the patient safety investigation review, resulted in important gaps in the evidence supplied both to the review and the inquest. 5. My concern is that the above reflects a series of lapses in basic nursing care identified in respect of a single patient, a repetition of any of which could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe intravenous fluid management; Unsafe management of refusal of necessary care or protective action.

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 establish whether an assessed risk of harm had increased and required emergency intervention

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard evidence that on 29 August 2023, the day after Mr Dulling had been assessed at home by two members of the Crisis Team, his wife contacted the All Age Crisis Line number she had been given. She spoke to a clinician from the Crisis Team and reported that she and her husband were outside their home address, he was angry and distressed and she needed help. The advice given to Mrs Dulling was to call the police if she was concerned for her safety. Mrs Dulling ended the call frustrated at the lack of practical advice and assistance. 2. Mr Dulling had been deemed to present a risk of harm to himself and others when assessed by Crisis Team members on 28 August 2023. My concern is that the call did not establish whether this risk had increased, such that Mental Health Act detention or other emergency intervention should be considered, nor offer practical advice to Mrs Dulling about taking her husband to an acute hospital or calling an ambulance, nor explain what assistance it was considered or anticipated could be provided by the police. 3. My concern is that a repetition of such a limited response could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable crisis team care provision.

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 explain anticipated police assistance

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard evidence that on 29 August 2023, the day after Mr Dulling had been assessed at home by two members of the Crisis Team, his wife contacted the All Age Crisis Line number she had been given. She spoke to a clinician from the Crisis Team and reported that she and her husband were outside their home address, he was angry and distressed and she needed help. The advice given to Mrs Dulling was to call the police if she was concerned for her safety. Mrs Dulling ended the call frustrated at the lack of practical advice and assistance. 2. Mr Dulling had been deemed to present a risk of harm to himself and others when assessed by Crisis Team members on 28 August 2023. My concern is that the call did not establish whether this risk had increased, such that Mental Health Act detention or other emergency intervention should be considered, nor offer practical advice to Mrs Dulling about taking her husband to an acute hospital or calling an ambulance, nor explain what assistance it was considered or anticipated could be provided by the police. 3. My concern is that a repetition of such a limited response could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable coordination of mental health crisis responses.

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 practical emergency-care advice to carers

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard evidence that on 29 August 2023, the day after Mr Dulling had been assessed at home by two members of the Crisis Team, his wife contacted the All Age Crisis Line number she had been given. She spoke to a clinician from the Crisis Team and reported that she and her husband were outside their home address, he was angry and distressed and she needed help. The advice given to Mrs Dulling was to call the police if she was concerned for her safety. Mrs Dulling ended the call frustrated at the lack of practical advice and assistance. 2. Mr Dulling had been deemed to present a risk of harm to himself and others when assessed by Crisis Team members on 28 August 2023. My concern is that the call did not establish whether this risk had increased, such that Mental Health Act detention or other emergency intervention should be considered, nor offer practical advice to Mrs Dulling about taking her husband to an acute hospital or calling an ambulance, nor explain what assistance it was considered or anticipated could be provided by the police. 3. My concern is that a repetition of such a limited response could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety-netting advice for patients and carers; Unreliable crisis team care provision.

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 ensure the recorded and implemented diet reflects identified nutritional needs

Wider context from the report

“4. I heard evidence of a number of omissions and lapses in the care afforded Mr Dulling by registered nurses during his admission to York District Hospital. My concerns relate to the following findings – a) No evidence of any direct inquiry being made of Mr Dulling’s primary carer in respect of his nutritional needs, despite Mr Dulling being deemed to lack capacity; b) It being recorded and acted upon that a regular diet was appropriate for Mr Dulling, despite a) above; c) No food chart being implemented and maintained despite the outcome of Mr Dulling’s malnutrition risk assessment; d) No assessment or escalation of Mr Dulling’s refusal of intravenous fluids; e) Evidence of a delayed response by a staff nurse to the information that Mr Dulling was choking; f) The absence of a de-brief of staff involved in the choking incident by a nurse of the requisite level within the period of 72 hours after the event. This, together with the subsequent delay in undertaking and completing the patient safety investigation review, resulted in important gaps in the evidence supplied both to the review and the inquest. 5. My concern is that the above reflects a series of lapses in basic nursing care identified in respect of a single patient, a repetition of any of which could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of patients' nutrition and hydration needs.

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 undertaking and completing patient safety investigation reviews

Wider context from the report

“4. I heard evidence of a number of omissions and lapses in the care afforded Mr Dulling by registered nurses during his admission to York District Hospital. My concerns relate to the following findings – a) No evidence of any direct inquiry being made of Mr Dulling’s primary carer in respect of his nutritional needs, despite Mr Dulling being deemed to lack capacity; b) It being recorded and acted upon that a regular diet was appropriate for Mr Dulling, despite a) above; c) No food chart being implemented and maintained despite the outcome of Mr Dulling’s malnutrition risk assessment; d) No assessment or escalation of Mr Dulling’s refusal of intravenous fluids; e) Evidence of a delayed response by a staff nurse to the information that Mr Dulling was choking; f) The absence of a de-brief of staff involved in the choking incident by a nurse of the requisite level within the period of 72 hours after the event. This, together with the subsequent delay in undertaking and completing the patient safety investigation review, resulted in important gaps in the evidence supplied both to the review and the inquest. 5. My concern is that the above reflects a series of lapses in basic nursing care identified in respect of a single patient, a repetition of any of which could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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

Delayed nursing response to information about choking

Wider context from the report

“4. I heard evidence of a number of omissions and lapses in the care afforded Mr Dulling by registered nurses during his admission to York District Hospital. My concerns relate to the following findings – a) No evidence of any direct inquiry being made of Mr Dulling’s primary carer in respect of his nutritional needs, despite Mr Dulling being deemed to lack capacity; b) It being recorded and acted upon that a regular diet was appropriate for Mr Dulling, despite a) above; c) No food chart being implemented and maintained despite the outcome of Mr Dulling’s malnutrition risk assessment; d) No assessment or escalation of Mr Dulling’s refusal of intravenous fluids; e) Evidence of a delayed response by a staff nurse to the information that Mr Dulling was choking; f) The absence of a de-brief of staff involved in the choking incident by a nurse of the requisite level within the period of 72 hours after the event. This, together with the subsequent delay in undertaking and completing the patient safety investigation review, resulted in important gaps in the evidence supplied both to the review and the inquest. 5. My concern is that the above reflects a series of lapses in basic nursing care identified in respect of a single patient, a repetition of any of which could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably respond to patient breathing emergencies.

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 implement and maintain food charts after malnutrition risk assessment

Wider context from the report

“4. I heard evidence of a number of omissions and lapses in the care afforded Mr Dulling by registered nurses during his admission to York District Hospital. My concerns relate to the following findings – a) No evidence of any direct inquiry being made of Mr Dulling’s primary carer in respect of his nutritional needs, despite Mr Dulling being deemed to lack capacity; b) It being recorded and acted upon that a regular diet was appropriate for Mr Dulling, despite a) above; c) No food chart being implemented and maintained despite the outcome of Mr Dulling’s malnutrition risk assessment; d) No assessment or escalation of Mr Dulling’s refusal of intravenous fluids; e) Evidence of a delayed response by a staff nurse to the information that Mr Dulling was choking; f) The absence of a de-brief of staff involved in the choking incident by a nurse of the requisite level within the period of 72 hours after the event. This, together with the subsequent delay in undertaking and completing the patient safety investigation review, resulted in important gaps in the evidence supplied both to the review and the inquest. 5. My concern is that the above reflects a series of lapses in basic nursing care identified in respect of a single patient, a repetition of any of which could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of malnutrition risk; Inadequate management of patients' nutrition and hydration needs.

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 make direct nutritional-needs inquiries of the primary carer

Wider context from the report

“4. I heard evidence of a number of omissions and lapses in the care afforded Mr Dulling by registered nurses during his admission to York District Hospital. My concerns relate to the following findings – a) No evidence of any direct inquiry being made of Mr Dulling’s primary carer in respect of his nutritional needs, despite Mr Dulling being deemed to lack capacity; b) It being recorded and acted upon that a regular diet was appropriate for Mr Dulling, despite a) above; c) No food chart being implemented and maintained despite the outcome of Mr Dulling’s malnutrition risk assessment; d) No assessment or escalation of Mr Dulling’s refusal of intravenous fluids; e) Evidence of a delayed response by a staff nurse to the information that Mr Dulling was choking; f) The absence of a de-brief of staff involved in the choking incident by a nurse of the requisite level within the period of 72 hours after the event. This, together with the subsequent delay in undertaking and completing the patient safety investigation review, resulted in important gaps in the evidence supplied both to the review and the inquest. 5. My concern is that the above reflects a series of lapses in basic nursing care identified in respect of a single patient, a repetition of any of which could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to obtain relevant collateral information from family and social supports.

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 debrief choking-incident staff within 72 hours

Wider context from the report

“4. I heard evidence of a number of omissions and lapses in the care afforded Mr Dulling by registered nurses during his admission to York District Hospital. My concerns relate to the following findings – a) No evidence of any direct inquiry being made of Mr Dulling’s primary carer in respect of his nutritional needs, despite Mr Dulling being deemed to lack capacity; b) It being recorded and acted upon that a regular diet was appropriate for Mr Dulling, despite a) above; c) No food chart being implemented and maintained despite the outcome of Mr Dulling’s malnutrition risk assessment; d) No assessment or escalation of Mr Dulling’s refusal of intravenous fluids; e) Evidence of a delayed response by a staff nurse to the information that Mr Dulling was choking; f) The absence of a de-brief of staff involved in the choking incident by a nurse of the requisite level within the period of 72 hours after the event. This, together with the subsequent delay in undertaking and completing the patient safety investigation review, resulted in important gaps in the evidence supplied both to the review and the inquest. 5. My concern is that the above reflects a series of lapses in basic nursing care identified in respect of a single patient, a repetition of any of which could present a risk of future deaths to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to conduct safety debriefs after serious incidents; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

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

Present the case to the Trust Urgent Care Board to address learning from the incident.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am sorry to hear that the role and rationale for contacting the Police was not clearly communicated to Mr Dulling's wife. The case will be presented at the Trust Urgent Care Board which takes place on the 23 January 2025. Learning from this incident will also be shared at the all the Trust's Specialty Clinical Networks meetings on 19 December 2024, 20 December 2024, 7 January 2025 and 22 January 2025 via the service development managers for adult mental health, mental health services for older people, child and adolescent mental health services and adult learning disabilities to highlight the importance of clear communication and the impact of it and to the Trustwide Organisational Learning Group on 5 December 2024.”

Source location

Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Share incident learning across Trust clinical networks and the Organisational Learning Group to reinforce clear communication about contacting police.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am sorry to hear that the role and rationale for contacting the Police was not clearly communicated to Mr Dulling's wife. The case will be presented at the Trust Urgent Care Board which takes place on the 23 January 2025. Learning from this incident will also be shared at the all the Trust's Specialty Clinical Networks meetings on 19 December 2024, 20 December 2024, 7 January 2025 and 22 January 2025 via the service development managers for adult mental health, mental health services for older people, child and adolescent mental health services and adult learning disabilities to highlight the importance of clear communication and the impact of it and to the Trustwide Organisational Learning Group on 5 December 2024.”

Source location

Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Carry out quality-improvement work addressing poor compliance with nutritional assessment and food-chart requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“not optimal and are in the process of bringing these assessments together into one section of Nucleus (electronic digital nursing record) and this is due to go live in January 2025. We are confident that this will significantly reduce the risk of essential information being overlooked. The Trust recognises the previous poor compliance in this area, as identified in Mr Dulling’s case, and this is a focus of current quality improvement project work. The Trust has completed a Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) cluster review of Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) and swallow related incidents. This was presented to the Trust’s Serious Incident Group in December 2024 with an associated action plan.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Implement and use a policy requiring a hot debrief or other incident response after relevant events.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is to be noted that at the time of the incident the Trust followed its previous policy on incident management. The Trust moved to the new Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) in December 2023. Since that time revised systems and processes have been put in place to record, monitor, review and learn from incidents across the Trust. It is acknowledged the investigation undertaken following this incident was not timely nor optimal. This has been reviewed with the Medicine Care Group and the new policy requiring either hot”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Introduce a Nucleus fluid assessment for all patients that prompts hydration monitoring according to clinical need.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this incident occurred there is a new fluid assessment, as part of the Nucleus digital patient record, which is completed for all patients. This then prompts appropriate hydration monitoring dependant on the level of clinical need. The Food, Nutrition and Hydration Policy clearly states that when a patient lacks capacity a best interest’s decision should be made about ongoing fluid management, in consultation with family or carers.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Consolidate eating, drinking and nutrition assessments into one Nucleus section.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is accepted that the assessment of Mr Dulling’s nutritional needs on admission was not detailed enough and that a food chart was not instigated/completed when it should have been. The Trust’s Food, Nutrition and Hydration Policy (available if required) was updated in November 2024. There are currently several assessments, relating to eating and drinking and nutrition, that nursing staff undertake when a patient is admitted. These assessments are not all located in the same place and not as intuitive as they could be. We recognise that this is”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Update the Food, Nutrition and Hydration Policy to require best-interest decisions on fluid management for patients lacking capacity, in consultation with family or carers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is accepted that the assessment of Mr Dulling’s nutritional needs on admission was not detailed enough and that a food chart was not instigated/completed when it should have been. The Trust’s Food, Nutrition and Hydration Policy (available if required) was updated in November 2024. There are currently several assessments, relating to eating and drinking and nutrition, that nursing staff undertake when a patient is admitted. These assessments are not all located in the same place and not as intuitive as they could be. We recognise that this is”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Maintain a dedicated Medicine Care Group Clinical Governance Team to review reported patient-safety events daily, request learning responses and escalate severe or moderate harm events.

Verbatim wording from the response

“debrief or other form of incident response is now in place and is being used to proper effect. The Medicine Care Group has a dedicated Clinical Governance Team who review all reported patient safety events on a daily basis, appropriate learning responses identified and requested, and any severe or moderate harm patient safety events escalated to the Care Group quadrature.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Complete and present a cluster review of speech-and-language-therapy and swallow-related incidents with an associated action plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“not optimal and are in the process of bringing these assessments together into one section of Nucleus (electronic digital nursing record) and this is due to go live in January 2025. We are confident that this will significantly reduce the risk of essential information being overlooked. The Trust recognises the previous poor compliance in this area, as identified in Mr Dulling’s case, and this is a focus of current quality improvement project work. The Trust has completed a Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) cluster review of Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) and swallow related incidents. This was presented to the Trust’s Serious Incident Group in December 2024 with an associated action plan.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Implement revised incident-management systems and processes for recording, monitoring, reviewing and learning from patient-safety incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is to be noted that at the time of the incident the Trust followed its previous policy on incident management. The Trust moved to the new Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) in December 2023. Since that time revised systems and processes have been put in place to record, monitor, review and learn from incidents across the Trust. It is acknowledged the investigation undertaken following this incident was not timely nor optimal. This has been reviewed with the Medicine Care Group and the new policy requiring either hot”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Police advice was correct because violence and aggression required an emergency response with police powers, rather than Crisis Team intervention alone.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Crisis Team are not an emergency service and when there is felt to be an immediate and significant risk, the correct advice is for the emergency services to be contacted, which depending upon the nature of the call will either be done by the person contacting emergency services themselves or the Crisis Team agreeing to contact on their behalf. This will then result in a decision being made by the emergency services as to whether there will be a response from the Police or Ambulance Service.”

Source location

Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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 nurse’s response to the choking was only briefly delayed because they were administering medication to another patient.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e) Evidence of a delayed response by a staff nurse to the information that Mr Dulling was choking”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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.2

  1. 1

    Implement improvement actions addressing delayed speech-and-language-therapy referrals and provision of food or drink at incorrect IDDSI levels, with steering-group monitoring.

    Stated by York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 October 2024.
  2. 2

    Publish a sip-testing standard operating procedure and associated Nucleus training video.

    Stated by York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 October 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Emergency services, rather than the Crisis Team, decide whether police or ambulance services respond after emergency contact.

    Stated by Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 improvement actions addressing delayed speech-and-language-therapy referrals and provision of food or drink at incorrect IDDSI levels, with steering-group monitoring.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The PSII identified themes around lack of or delayed referral to SLT as well as food and drink given to patients that is not the IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative) level advised by SLT. The identified actions are incorporated into ongoing improvement work and monitored by the Trust Food, Nutrition and Hydration Steering Group.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Publish a sip-testing standard operating procedure and associated Nucleus training video.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Speech and Language Therapists have also led on development of a Sip Testing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which was published in November 2024 along with a training video on Nucleus. This identifies patients who should be considered for a sip test and those for whom this is contraindicated, such as those with pre-existing swallowing difficulties.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 October 2024

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

Emergency services, rather than the Crisis Team, decide whether police or ambulance services respond after emergency contact.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Crisis Team are not an emergency service and when there is felt to be an immediate and significant risk, the correct advice is for the emergency services to be contacted, which depending upon the nature of the call will either be done by the person contacting emergency services themselves or the Crisis Team agreeing to contact on their behalf. This will then result in a decision being made by the emergency services as to whether there will be a response from the Police or Ambulance Service.”

Source location

Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 15 October 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026