PFD report

Stanley Bere · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Jul 2014•West Sussex

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

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. Lack of cross-referencing or monitoring of Cardex and incident reports
  2. Failure to follow up or update incident reports when further information becomes available
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents
  3. Failure to properly complete Cardex records
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation of falls and related clinical response
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.1

  1. Action

    Strengthen incident reporting by recording and updating falls, accidents and near misses, with regular management auditing and follow-up.

    Stated by The Salvation ArmyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 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

Lack of cross-referencing or monitoring of Cardex and incident reports

Wider context from the report

“(3) The lack of cross referencing or monitoring of these Cardex system and the Incident reports appears to have been the reason why Mr Bere’s injuries were not picked up soon by staff. ”

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 follow up or update incident reports when further information becomes available

Wider context from the report

“(2) Incident reports were being completed but in Mr Bere’s case his incident report was not followed up or updated even when further information was available as to the extent of Mr Bere’s injury. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents.

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 properly complete Cardex records

Wider context from the report

“(1) There was evidence provided at the Inquest that showed that the Cardex system used at the home was not being properly completed. Dates, on occasions, appeared to be out of order and important information such where a patient had fallen was not being recorded. Family concerns also did not appear to always be recorded. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable documentation of falls and related clinical response.

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

Strengthen incident reporting by recording and updating falls, accidents and near misses, with regular management auditing and follow-up.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have tightened up our reporting systems, particularly ensuring all falls, accidents and "near misses" are recorded, and updating on any accident or incident. A more secure system of archiving has been introduced. We have also found a copy of a receipt we asked the coroner's officer to sign when taking the records, as she had no letter with her. I have enclosed a copy for your records. The home manager regularly checks that issues are recorded and followed up in his regular auditing of documents. Staff are aware of the consequences if they do not follow correct procedures. These improvements were put in place immediately following the inquest.”

Source location

2014-0339-Response-by-Older-Peoples-Services
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 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.2

  1. 1

    Maintain copies of district nurses’ treatment records to track each resident’s current care situation.

    Stated by The Salvation ArmyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2014.
  2. 2

    Introduce a more secure records archiving system.

    Stated by The Salvation ArmyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2014.

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

  1. 1

    The response disputes attributing the outcome solely to the service, noting missed opportunities and contributions by other professionals.

    Stated by The Salvation ArmyDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 copies of district nurses’ treatment records to track each resident’s current care situation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Kardex system does record that on 19 November 2011 Mr. Bere's dressing came off and staff referred him to the district nurses. They took over his care and redressed and cleaned the wound. There are four recorded items in the Kardex at that period of time. District nurses keep their own record of treatments for residents. We now ensure that we have a copy of their records and are aware of the current situation with each resident.”

Source location

2014-0339-Response-by-Older-Peoples-Services
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 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

Introduce a more secure records archiving system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have tightened up our reporting systems, particularly ensuring all falls, accidents and "near misses" are recorded, and updating on any accident or incident. A more secure system of archiving has been introduced. We have also found a copy of a receipt we asked the coroner's officer to sign when taking the records, as she had no letter with her. I have enclosed a copy for your records. The home manager regularly checks that issues are recorded and followed up in his regular auditing of documents. Staff are aware of the consequences if they do not follow correct procedures. These improvements were put in place immediately following the inquest.”

Source location

2014-0339-Response-by-Older-Peoples-Services
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 2014

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 response disputes attributing the outcome solely to the service, noting missed opportunities and contributions by other professionals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We appreciate that this report is specifically for us and are happy to provide details of our actions but it is disappointing that there is no mention of the verbal summing up of the narrative verdict where it was acknowledged that there were missed opportunities by all parties involved and that other professionals also had a part to play in the outcome.”

Source location

2014-0339-Response-by-Older-Peoples-Services
Page 2 · response
Published 4 July 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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026