PFD report

George Robert Vickery · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Oct 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
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to formally consult the patient's GP about how, where, or whether to change treatment
  2. Failure to have proper regard to the patient's GP's views on treatment arrangements
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide sufficient GP involvement in patient care
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 formally consult the patient's GP about how, where, or whether to change treatment

Wider context from the report

“That the decision to treat Mr Vickery at the clinic rather than in his own home (as had been the case previously) was taken without regard to a request from his GP that he should be treated at home, not at a clinic. In my opinion, when assessing how and where a patient should be treated, or when assessing whether any changes should be made as to how and where a patient is treated, Southern Health's Integrated Community Services should formally consult with the Patient's GP and have proper regard to the GP's views on these matters. ”

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 have proper regard to the patient's GP's views on treatment arrangements

Wider context from the report

“That the decision to treat Mr Vickery at the clinic rather than in his own home (as had been the case previously) was taken without regard to a request from his GP that he should be treated at home, not at a clinic. In my opinion, when assessing how and where a patient should be treated, or when assessing whether any changes should be made as to how and where a patient is treated, Southern Health's Integrated Community Services should formally consult with the Patient's GP and have proper regard to the GP's views on these matters. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide sufficient GP involvement in patient care.

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026