PFD report

William Clifford ATHERTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Dec 2018•Norfolk

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

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 raised7

  1. Failure to recognise and act on warning signs of bowel obstruction
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe recognition and escalation of bowel obstruction
  2. Failure to carry out nursing observations while patients await discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
  3. Incorrect completion of early warning score documentation
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical Early Warning Score systems for deterioration
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 recognise and act on warning signs of bowel obstruction

Wider context from the report

“That no medical review of Mr Atherton took place after the ward round on 30th. That his worsening condition was not recognised by the junior doctor reviewing the blood results. That no nursing observations were carried out in the several hours whilst he waited to go home and that potential warning signs of a bowel obstruction were not recognised and acted upon. His documentation was incorrectly filled in (early warning scores EWS) and thus the proper escalation of treatment which this should have triggered did not take place. That the different department at QEH appear to complete EWS differently results in inconsistent scoring and the potential to not escalate treatment of a patient who needs it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe recognition and escalation of bowel obstruction.

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 nursing observations while patients await discharge

Wider context from the report

“That no medical review of Mr Atherton took place after the ward round on 30th. That his worsening condition was not recognised by the junior doctor reviewing the blood results. That no nursing observations were carried out in the several hours whilst he waited to go home and that potential warning signs of a bowel obstruction were not recognised and acted upon. His documentation was incorrectly filled in (early warning scores EWS) and thus the proper escalation of treatment which this should have triggered did not take place. That the different department at QEH appear to complete EWS differently results in inconsistent scoring and the potential to not escalate treatment of a patient who needs it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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

Incorrect completion of early warning score documentation

Wider context from the report

“That no medical review of Mr Atherton took place after the ward round on 30th. That his worsening condition was not recognised by the junior doctor reviewing the blood results. That no nursing observations were carried out in the several hours whilst he waited to go home and that potential warning signs of a bowel obstruction were not recognised and acted upon. His documentation was incorrectly filled in (early warning scores EWS) and thus the proper escalation of treatment which this should have triggered did not take place. That the different department at QEH appear to complete EWS differently results in inconsistent scoring and the potential to not escalate treatment of a patient who needs it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical Early Warning Score systems for deterioration.

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 escalate treatment when early warning scores require it

Wider context from the report

“That no medical review of Mr Atherton took place after the ward round on 30th. That his worsening condition was not recognised by the junior doctor reviewing the blood results. That no nursing observations were carried out in the several hours whilst he waited to go home and that potential warning signs of a bowel obstruction were not recognised and acted upon. His documentation was incorrectly filled in (early warning scores EWS) and thus the proper escalation of treatment which this should have triggered did not take place. That the different department at QEH appear to complete EWS differently results in inconsistent scoring and the potential to not escalate treatment of a patient who needs it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical Early Warning Score systems for deterioration; Unreliable escalation of abnormal clinical observations.

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 recognise worsening condition from blood results

Wider context from the report

“That no medical review of Mr Atherton took place after the ward round on 30th. That his worsening condition was not recognised by the junior doctor reviewing the blood results. That no nursing observations were carried out in the several hours whilst he waited to go home and that potential warning signs of a bowel obstruction were not recognised and acted upon. His documentation was incorrectly filled in (early warning scores EWS) and thus the proper escalation of treatment which this should have triggered did not take place. That the different department at QEH appear to complete EWS differently results in inconsistent scoring and the potential to not escalate treatment of a patient who needs it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon; Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deterioration.

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 medical review after ward rounds

Wider context from the report

“That no medical review of Mr Atherton took place after the ward round on 30th. That his worsening condition was not recognised by the junior doctor reviewing the blood results. That no nursing observations were carried out in the several hours whilst he waited to go home and that potential warning signs of a bowel obstruction were not recognised and acted upon. His documentation was incorrectly filled in (early warning scores EWS) and thus the proper escalation of treatment which this should have triggered did not take place. That the different department at QEH appear to complete EWS differently results in inconsistent scoring and the potential to not escalate treatment of a patient who needs it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely clinical care; Failure to provide timely medical review of admitted patients.

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

Inconsistent completion and scoring of early warning scores across departments

Wider context from the report

“That no medical review of Mr Atherton took place after the ward round on 30th. That his worsening condition was not recognised by the junior doctor reviewing the blood results. That no nursing observations were carried out in the several hours whilst he waited to go home and that potential warning signs of a bowel obstruction were not recognised and acted upon. His documentation was incorrectly filled in (early warning scores EWS) and thus the proper escalation of treatment which this should have triggered did not take place. That the different department at QEH appear to complete EWS differently results in inconsistent scoring and the potential to not escalate treatment of a patient who needs it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical Early Warning Score systems for deterioration.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.