PFD report

Stephen Anthony Mayoll · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Nov 2014•Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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. Delays in typing fracture clinic doctors' notes causing their unavailability when out-patients return
  2. Failure to re-assess relevant fracture clinic out-patients under the DVT assessment policy
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable DVT diagnosis and management
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.5

  1. Action

    Update the plaster-room “in trouble” form to document venous thromboembolism assessment recommendations.

    Stated by Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 November 2014.
  2. Action

    Reassess venous thromboembolism risk factors at every fracture-clinic return for patients with lower-limb injuries.

    Stated by Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 November 2014.
  3. Action

    Explore information-technology solutions to improve the availability of consultant review notes.

    Stated by Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 November 2014.

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 typing fracture clinic doctors' notes causing their unavailability when out-patients return

Wider context from the report

“2- Evidence was given at the Inquest highlighting the delay in typing fracture clinic doctors' notes meaning that they would not always be available if an out-patient returned to the clinic and improved methods of making the notes available sooner to the clinic (e.g. by use of voice recognition IT) would obviate this problem. ”

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 re-assess relevant fracture clinic out-patients under the DVT assessment policy

Wider context from the report

“1- Out-patients with similar injuries to Mr Mayoll's returning to the fracture clinic at Queen Alexandra Hospital experiencing problems with their treatment or for periodic review are not subject to re-assessment under the hospital's DVT assessment policy. If they were, there would be less risk of their developing DVT's during the course of their treatment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable DVT diagnosis and management.

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

Update the plaster-room “in trouble” form to document venous thromboembolism assessment recommendations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Patients who return to the fracture clinic with lower limb injuries as “in trouble” or for routine review, will have a reassessment of their risk factors for VTE each time they attended, the result of which will be considered by the doctor reviewing them. This will be documented via the normal route on a plaster room “in trouble” form which is currently being updated and will include the recommendations from the Inquiry relating to VTE assessment.”

Source location

2014-0515-Response-by-Portsmouth-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2014

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

Reassess venous thromboembolism risk factors at every fracture-clinic return for patients with lower-limb injuries.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Patients who return to the fracture clinic with lower limb injuries as “in trouble” or for routine review, will have a reassessment of their risk factors for VTE each time they attended, the result of which will be considered by the doctor reviewing them. This will be documented via the normal route on a plaster room “in trouble” form which is currently being updated and will include the recommendations from the Inquiry relating to VTE assessment.”

Source location

2014-0515-Response-by-Portsmouth-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2014

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

Explore information-technology solutions to improve the availability of consultant review notes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2b. An “in trouble” patient reviewed by the Consultant will have the notes dictated that day and then typed up by the Orthopaedic secretaries with the aim for them to be typed within 24-hours. We are exploring IT solutions as well but this is the interim solution. The current EPRO system (a digital dictation system) involves the notes being typed up by agency staff and, possibly, in the future, outside agencies and it is anticipated that the normal typing turnaround will be at 48-hours by the end of March which is still not quick enough to ensure that information is available for a Consultant reviewing a returning patient. However, there is the ability through EPRO to gain access to the tapes but the Consultants can listen to the recording if the typed notes are not available. This is being fed back at the next consultants’ meeting, by way of reminder.”

Source location

2014-0515-Response-by-Portsmouth-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2014

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

Dictate consultant notes on the day of review and type them through Orthopaedic secretaries within 24 hours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2b. An “in trouble” patient reviewed by the Consultant will have the notes dictated that day and then typed up by the Orthopaedic secretaries with the aim for them to be typed within 24-hours. We are exploring IT solutions as well but this is the interim solution. The current EPRO system (a digital dictation system) involves the notes being typed up by agency staff and, possibly, in the future, outside agencies and it is anticipated that the normal typing turnaround will be at 48-hours by the end of March which is still not quick enough to ensure that information is available for a Consultant reviewing a returning patient. However, there is the ability through EPRO to gain access to the tapes but the Consultants can listen to the recording if the typed notes are not available. This is being fed back at the next consultants’ meeting, by way of reminder.”

Source location

2014-0515-Response-by-Portsmouth-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2014

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

Remind consultants at their next meeting about accessing dictated recordings when typed notes are unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2b. An “in trouble” patient reviewed by the Consultant will have the notes dictated that day and then typed up by the Orthopaedic secretaries with the aim for them to be typed within 24-hours. We are exploring IT solutions as well but this is the interim solution. The current EPRO system (a digital dictation system) involves the notes being typed up by agency staff and, possibly, in the future, outside agencies and it is anticipated that the normal typing turnaround will be at 48-hours by the end of March which is still not quick enough to ensure that information is available for a Consultant reviewing a returning patient. However, there is the ability through EPRO to gain access to the tapes but the Consultants can listen to the recording if the typed notes are not available. This is being fed back at the next consultants’ meeting, by way of reminder.”

Source location

2014-0515-Response-by-Portsmouth-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2014

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

    Record, sign, date, scan and electronically save plaster-technician reviews so returning-patient information and treatment decisions are available to clinicians.

    Stated by Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 November 2014.

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

Record, sign, date, scan and electronically save plaster-technician reviews so returning-patient information and treatment decisions are available to clinicians.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2a. We will ensure that the review by the plaster technicians will be recorded, signed and correctly dated and then scanned and saved by “Windrip” (an electronic storage system) so that if the patient returns again, the information is available for the health care professional to view and follow the decision making and treatment plan from the previous visit. The scanner required for this to take place is currently being ordered.”

Source location

2014-0515-Response-by-Portsmouth-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2014

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