PFD report

Anita Loi · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Feb 2020•South London

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
13

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 engage with GPs in clinical review of unexpected deaths
  2. Failure to respond to community referrals for wound management
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable referrals to district nursing services
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

    Improve referral processes from primary care into District Nursing and Tissue Viability Nursing teams.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  2. Action

    Implement updated triage procedures requiring checks for other services and coordinated review of referrals received by multiple teams.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  3. Action

    Establish multidisciplinary review processes for people referred to multiple teams.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2020.

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

  1. Position

    Attendance at the GP case-review meeting was not possible because the manager was on leave and the deputy was subsequently unavailable through sickness.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 engage with GPs in clinical review of unexpected deaths

Wider context from the report

“(2) On 11 December 2019 the GP invited the District Nurses Team and Tissue Viability Nurses Team to attend a meeting at the surgery with the practice clinicians to review unexpected deaths and to discuss this case. Neither team attended the meeting and to date have not engaged with the GP in relation to this death despite a chasing letter. ”

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 respond to community referrals for wound management

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Tissue Viability Nurse and District Nurses are a part of the same community team but no steps had been taken to attend to the management of Anita Loi’s leg wound despite repeated referrals by the GP and a call to the community team by the family. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable referrals to district nursing services.

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

Improve referral processes from primary care into District Nursing and Tissue Viability Nursing teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. We have undertaken an urgent review and are improving the referral processes from primary care into DN & TVN teams.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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 updated triage procedures requiring checks for other services and coordinated review of referrals received by multiple teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have updated our Triaging Standard Operating Procedures to ensure a robust process for the management and response to referrals. The procedure now ensures that Triage nurses check if patients are open to other CLCH services. If the referral received is for more than one service on the same day the triage nurse must make contact with that other service to initiate joint working and ensure that visits are allocated appropriately. When a referral is received by more than one service, a meeting is held to ensure that the patient’s referral, clinical history is reviewed jointly and a plan of action on how best to manage the patient’s care is determined.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Establish multidisciplinary review processes for people referred to multiple teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. We will establish clear processes to be in place to review jointly as part of an MDT all people referred who are know to multiple teams to ensure timely joined up responsiveness.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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 electronic patient-record reminders in EMIS Health to improve referral management and responsiveness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. We will commence work on our electronic patient record system to strengthen the reminder capability in EMIS Health, (Egton Medical Information Systems), to ensure that referrals are effectively managed and responsiveness is maximised.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Strengthen engagement with GP practice meetings and communication about patient-care discussions and unexpected deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I’m sorry that we missed the opportunity to engage in this meeting as a result of the issues outlined above. We acknowledge that engaging in this meeting would have been a good opportunity to review Mrs Loi’s care and we will put measures in place to ensure improved engagement with such meetings going forward. The Merton Community Service continue to attend practice meetings and will be strengthening the communication between the GP practices to ensure that discussions are held whenever there is any confusion surrounding a patient’s care or unexpected death.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Attendance at the GP case-review meeting was not possible because the manager was on leave and the deputy was subsequently unavailable through sickness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ replied on 20 November 2019 advising that she would be unable to attend on that date as she would be on annual leave, however, she would enquire whether another manager would be able to attend in her place. ████████ informed ████████ that she would be unable to share the clinical records with him as there was no information sharing agreement in place with the GP practice at that time however information would be shared by the person attending the meeting.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Clinical records could not be shared with the GP practice because no information-sharing agreement was in place.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ replied on 20 November 2019 advising that she would be unable to attend on that date as she would be on annual leave, however, she would enquire whether another manager would be able to attend in her place. ████████ informed ████████ that she would be unable to share the clinical records with him as there was no information sharing agreement in place with the GP practice at that time however information would be shared by the person attending the meeting.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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.8

  1. 1

    Improve escalation processes for delays in obtaining information from GPs for triage.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  2. 2

    Improve the referral form to clarify clinical information required by Tissue Viability Nursing for clinical decisions.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  3. 3

    Share learning from the investigation with teams across the Trust.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  4. 4

    Clarify referral requirements for GPs, including detailed clinical assessment and patient urgency.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  5. 5

    Contact the accredited Harrow service to share learning about seamless coordination and joint referrals between teams.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  6. 6

    Review the District Nursing Doppler caseload-prioritisation process to ensure it is risk based.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  7. 7

    Coordinate with the appropriate team when Doppler referrals are incorrectly directed to Tissue Viability Nursing, to avoid care delays.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2020.
  8. 8

    Review how known medical history informs clinical decision-making.

    Stated by Central London Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 March 2020.

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

Improve escalation processes for delays in obtaining information from GPs for triage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. We progressing work to ensure urgent escalation processes if there are delays to requests from GPs for further information to inform triage.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Improve the referral form to clarify clinical information required by Tissue Viability Nursing for clinical decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. We have urgently reviewed the referral form to provide clarity on clinical information required by TVN to make informed clinical decision.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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 learning from the investigation with teams across the Trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am sorry our communication and management of referrals was below our expected high standards which led to delays in care. I am confident that the steps we are undertaking will ensure that each patient referred is reviewed in a collaborative, systematic way and care provided at the correct level. As well as continuing to review the actions we have implemented, we will also be sharing learning from this investigation with other teams across the Trust.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Clarify referral requirements for GPs, including detailed clinical assessment and patient urgency.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. We will clarify to the GP information required in a referral including a detailed clinical assessment and indication of urgency for patient.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Contact the accredited Harrow service to share learning about seamless coordination and joint referrals between teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Further to the poor communication between TVN & DN teams. The Merton DN/TVN team are to make urgent contact with the Trust accredited service in Harrow, to see what learning can be shared about providing a seamless service between these teams and the arrangements in place to managing joint referrals.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Review the District Nursing Doppler caseload-prioritisation process to ensure it is risk based.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10. We will urgently review the caseload prioritisation process for a doppler in the DN service to ensure it is risk based.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Coordinate with the appropriate team when Doppler referrals are incorrectly directed to Tissue Viability Nursing, to avoid care delays.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. Where referrals for doppler are made incorrectly to the TVN team we will put the patient at the centre of the care and work to avoid delays in care by; liaising with the appropriate team to see if the required assessment can be undertaken to aid clinical decision making.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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

Review how known medical history informs clinical decision-making.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. The Team will urgently review how known medical history is being used to inform clinical decision making.”

Source location

2020-0067-Response-from-Central-London-Community-Healthcare-NHS-Trust_Redacted.willbetrim.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 27 March 2020

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