PFD report

Terence Edward Hines · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Dec 2023•Worcestershire

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
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 raised3

  1. Failure to carry out required routine MRSA screening
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably provide required MRSA screening
  2. Insufficient staff awareness of policies and procedures requiring MRSA screening and room cleaning
  3. Failure to carry out the required Red clean of a room before a subsequent occupant moves in
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain effective environmental cleaning in healthcare settings
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 carry out required routine MRSA screening

Wider context from the report

“5) On or about 24.6.23, because Mr. Hines had now been an inpatient for 28 days, he should have been screened for MRSA. That routine MRSA screen was not carried out. The Trust’s investigation was unable to explain why that routine screen had not been carried out; 6) On 26.6.23 Mr. Hines suffered an accidental fall in the room, and was found to have sustained a fractured right neck of femur. As a result, he was transferred to Worcestershire Royal Hospital where surgery to fix the neck of femur fracture was carried out on 1.7.23; 7) As a matter of established routine, Mr. Hines should again have been screened for MRSA prior to his surgery,. Once again, that routine MRSA screen was not carried out. The Trust’s investigation did not explore the question of why that routine MRSA screen had not taken place; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably provide required MRSA screening.

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

Insufficient staff awareness of policies and procedures requiring MRSA screening and room cleaning

Wider context from the report

“Although I was unable to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that identification of the MRSA infection at either the missed routine 28 day screen on or about 24.6.23, or at the missed pre-surgery screen on 1.7.23, would have resulted in treatment which would likely have prevented Mr. Hines’ death, it is a matter of grave concern that these screens and the Red clean of the room, all routine measures designed to identify, treat and prevent the spread of such a serious pathogen, were not carried out. These failures have led me to conclude that staff at both the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch, and Worcestershire Royal Hospital, do not have sufficient awareness of the Trust’s policies and procedures which require such measures to be taken. ”

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 carry out the required Red clean of a room before a subsequent occupant moves in

Wider context from the report

“2) On 19.6.23 Mr. Hines was moved to side room 2, on ward 2 at the hospital. This room had been vacated that same day by another patient who had a known MRSA infection and an exfoliating skin condition which, taken together, represented a heightened risk of a subsequent occupant of the room developing an MRSA infection, and therefore ought to have triggered a Red ( hydrogen peroxide ) clean of the room before Mr. Hines moved into it; 3) A Red clean of the room did not take place before Mr. Hines moved into the room – instead, an Amber ( chlorine ) clean was carried out in error; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain effective environmental cleaning in healthcare settings.

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.