PFD report

Sasha Honey MISHABI · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Nov 2023•Birmingham and Solihull

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised6

  1. Failure to provide adequate monitoring and oversight of pressure ulcer policy implementation
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of pressure ulcers
  2. Failure to make required Datix incident reports for grade II lesions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents
  3. Failure to carry out a serious incident investigation when records indicate a relevant pre-admission incident
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes
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.4

  1. Action

    Establish substantive clinical, nursing and operations leadership with Quality Matrons and accountable physical-health governance oversight.

    Stated by St Andrew's HealthcareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 November 2023.
  2. Action

    Audit a random sample of daily huddles to check consideration of Waterlow Pressure Scores and other physical-health tests.

    Stated by St Andrew's HealthcareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 November 2023.
  3. Action

    Implement a defined escalation process and daily huddle monitoring of Waterlow, Skin Bundle and NEWS2 assessments.

    Stated by St Andrew's HealthcareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 November 2023.

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

  1. Position

    Although policy documentation was deficient, existing pressure-ulcer prevention measures were already in place and had no effect on the care available.

    Stated by St Andrew's HealthcareExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 adequate monitoring and oversight of pressure ulcer policy implementation

Wider context from the report

“1. Awareness of and compliance with St. Andrew's Healthcare 'Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management' Policy Due to his chronic physical health conditions Mr. Mishabi was at very high risk (score of 21) of pressure damage and ought to have had weekly waterlow assessments and daily skin inspections with more frequent assessment and inspection to be considered in the event of change such as the development of an ulcer. Statements were provided from ████████, Consultant Psychiatrist, and ████████, Lifford Ward Manager, on behalf of SAH in advance of the inquest. The statements included information on Mr. Mishabi's waterlow assessment and skin inspections, and provided some records. At no time was it identified that the SAH 'Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management Policy' was not followed in Mr. Mishabi's case. At inquest it was identified that ████████ had forgotten that there was such a policy (he initially denied there was a policy/procedure for waterlow assessments and later, after the policy had been produced, said there was but he had forgotten about it). The areas of non compliance identified at inquest were as follows: a. failure to undertake weekly waterlow assessments in accordance with paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 of the policy; b. failure to carry out and/or adequately record daily skin inspections in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the policy; c. failure to carry out a waterlow assessment when Mr. Mishabi was identified as having what were believed to be pressure ulcers on the 15th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of the policy; d. failure to consider increasing the frequency of skin inspections and carry out and/or adequately record any skin inspections between the identification of ulcers on the 15th March 2023 and the admission to hospital on the 17th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the policy; and e. failure to make a datix incident report when grade II lesions were identified on the 15th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.7 of the policy; and f. failure to provide adequate monitoring and oversight of the implementation of the policy in Mr. Mishabi's case in accordance with paragraph 5 of the policy. . ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers.

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 make required Datix incident reports for grade II lesions

Wider context from the report

“1. Awareness of and compliance with St. Andrew's Healthcare 'Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management' Policy Due to his chronic physical health conditions Mr. Mishabi was at very high risk (score of 21) of pressure damage and ought to have had weekly waterlow assessments and daily skin inspections with more frequent assessment and inspection to be considered in the event of change such as the development of an ulcer. Statements were provided from ████████, Consultant Psychiatrist, and ████████, Lifford Ward Manager, on behalf of SAH in advance of the inquest. The statements included information on Mr. Mishabi's waterlow assessment and skin inspections, and provided some records. At no time was it identified that the SAH 'Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management Policy' was not followed in Mr. Mishabi's case. At inquest it was identified that ████████ had forgotten that there was such a policy (he initially denied there was a policy/procedure for waterlow assessments and later, after the policy had been produced, said there was but he had forgotten about it). The areas of non compliance identified at inquest were as follows: a. failure to undertake weekly waterlow assessments in accordance with paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 of the policy; b. failure to carry out and/or adequately record daily skin inspections in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the policy; c. failure to carry out a waterlow assessment when Mr. Mishabi was identified as having what were believed to be pressure ulcers on the 15th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of the policy; d. failure to consider increasing the frequency of skin inspections and carry out and/or adequately record any skin inspections between the identification of ulcers on the 15th March 2023 and the admission to hospital on the 17th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the policy; and e. failure to make a datix incident report when grade II lesions were identified on the 15th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.7 of the policy; and f. failure to provide adequate monitoring and oversight of the implementation of the policy in Mr. Mishabi's case in accordance with paragraph 5 of the policy. . ”

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 carry out a serious incident investigation when records indicate a relevant pre-admission incident

Wider context from the report

“2. SAH Governance, Quality Assurance and Serious Incident processors a. SAH had not identified the issues with compliance with the policy before the inquest and could offer no explanation for how/why the failures occurred and persisted. b. No serious incident investigation had been carried out by SAH into Mr. Mishabi's death because it was mistakenly believed that the ulcers developed during the admission to hospital between the 17th March and 2nd April 2023. However, it was acknowledged in a statement from ████████ of the 14th September 2023 that there were records showing ulcers were present from the 15th March 2023. c. ████████ SAH Deputy Medical Director, gave evidence that the failures to comply with the policy ought to have been identified by review of the physical health dashboard in monthly ward governance huddles and the monthly divisional Integrated Quality and Performance meeting (IQPR). As there had been no investigation into what went wrong she could not explain why these systems did not work. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

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 and adequately record required skin inspections

Wider context from the report

“1. Awareness of and compliance with St. Andrew's Healthcare 'Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management' Policy Due to his chronic physical health conditions Mr. Mishabi was at very high risk (score of 21) of pressure damage and ought to have had weekly waterlow assessments and daily skin inspections with more frequent assessment and inspection to be considered in the event of change such as the development of an ulcer. Statements were provided from ████████, Consultant Psychiatrist, and ████████, Lifford Ward Manager, on behalf of SAH in advance of the inquest. The statements included information on Mr. Mishabi's waterlow assessment and skin inspections, and provided some records. At no time was it identified that the SAH 'Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management Policy' was not followed in Mr. Mishabi's case. At inquest it was identified that ████████ had forgotten that there was such a policy (he initially denied there was a policy/procedure for waterlow assessments and later, after the policy had been produced, said there was but he had forgotten about it). The areas of non compliance identified at inquest were as follows: a. failure to undertake weekly waterlow assessments in accordance with paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 of the policy; b. failure to carry out and/or adequately record daily skin inspections in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the policy; c. failure to carry out a waterlow assessment when Mr. Mishabi was identified as having what were believed to be pressure ulcers on the 15th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of the policy; d. failure to consider increasing the frequency of skin inspections and carry out and/or adequately record any skin inspections between the identification of ulcers on the 15th March 2023 and the admission to hospital on the 17th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the policy; and e. failure to make a datix incident report when grade II lesions were identified on the 15th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.7 of the policy; and f. failure to provide adequate monitoring and oversight of the implementation of the policy in Mr. Mishabi's case in accordance with paragraph 5 of the policy. . ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably conduct and record skin inspections.

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 of governance review systems to identify policy compliance failures

Wider context from the report

“2. SAH Governance, Quality Assurance and Serious Incident processors a. SAH had not identified the issues with compliance with the policy before the inquest and could offer no explanation for how/why the failures occurred and persisted. b. No serious incident investigation had been carried out by SAH into Mr. Mishabi's death because it was mistakenly believed that the ulcers developed during the admission to hospital between the 17th March and 2nd April 2023. However, it was acknowledged in a statement from ████████ of the 14th September 2023 that there were records showing ulcers were present from the 15th March 2023. c. ████████ SAH Deputy Medical Director, gave evidence that the failures to comply with the policy ought to have been identified by review of the physical health dashboard in monthly ward governance huddles and the monthly divisional Integrated Quality and Performance meeting (IQPR). As there had been no investigation into what went wrong she could not explain why these systems did not work. ”

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 undertake required waterlow assessments

Wider context from the report

“1. Awareness of and compliance with St. Andrew's Healthcare 'Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management' Policy Due to his chronic physical health conditions Mr. Mishabi was at very high risk (score of 21) of pressure damage and ought to have had weekly waterlow assessments and daily skin inspections with more frequent assessment and inspection to be considered in the event of change such as the development of an ulcer. Statements were provided from ████████, Consultant Psychiatrist, and ████████, Lifford Ward Manager, on behalf of SAH in advance of the inquest. The statements included information on Mr. Mishabi's waterlow assessment and skin inspections, and provided some records. At no time was it identified that the SAH 'Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management Policy' was not followed in Mr. Mishabi's case. At inquest it was identified that ████████ had forgotten that there was such a policy (he initially denied there was a policy/procedure for waterlow assessments and later, after the policy had been produced, said there was but he had forgotten about it). The areas of non compliance identified at inquest were as follows: a. failure to undertake weekly waterlow assessments in accordance with paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 of the policy; b. failure to carry out and/or adequately record daily skin inspections in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the policy; c. failure to carry out a waterlow assessment when Mr. Mishabi was identified as having what were believed to be pressure ulcers on the 15th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of the policy; d. failure to consider increasing the frequency of skin inspections and carry out and/or adequately record any skin inspections between the identification of ulcers on the 15th March 2023 and the admission to hospital on the 17th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the policy; and e. failure to make a datix incident report when grade II lesions were identified on the 15th March 2023 in accordance with paragraph 4.7 of the policy; and f. failure to provide adequate monitoring and oversight of the implementation of the policy in Mr. Mishabi's case in accordance with paragraph 5 of the policy. . ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Establish substantive clinical, nursing and operations leadership with Quality Matrons and accountable physical-health governance oversight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Change 3: Clearer Accountability and Responsibility for Physical Healthcare Since Mr Mishabi’s death, a triumvirate leadership team consisting of substantive postholders in the roles of Clinical Director, an Associate Director of Nursing and a Director of Operations is now in place.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 4 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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

Audit a random sample of daily huddles to check consideration of Waterlow Pressure Scores and other physical-health tests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action 1: Undertake an informal audit/dip test of the Daily Huddles The Associate Director of Nursing will be undertaking a random sample of daily huddles to ensure that issues with the Waterlow Pressure Scores and other physical healthcare tests are being considered at the daily huddles.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 4 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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 a defined escalation process and daily huddle monitoring of Waterlow, Skin Bundle and NEWS2 assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Change 4: Clear Escalation Plan and Daily Monitoring A well-defined escalation process in place to address any health needs promptly, with ward managers holding responsibility.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 4 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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

Send all staff a reminder to complete regular Waterlow Pressure Scores and comply with Charity policies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Change 6: Charity-wide Communication The Charity has already sent out a reminder to all staff about the importance of completing regular Waterlow Pressure Scores and complying with the Charity’s policies.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 4 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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

Although policy documentation was deficient, existing pressure-ulcer prevention measures were already in place and had no effect on the care available.

Verbatim wording from the response

““Mr Mishabi may have been prematurely discharged by colleagues at the QE on 2/04/23 as he was rapidly readmitted. Some liaison about how psych wards work and that the level of fitness required to be discharged to a psych ward being equivalent to that required to be managed in a domestic setting may be useful for QE colleagues going forwards.””

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 2 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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 governance structures were not inadequate; implementation refinement and support are now in place to address missed pressure-ulcer assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.8. A significant change at the Birmingham hospital since Mr Mishabi’s admission is that there is now a designated senior nursing leadership team in the form of an Associate Director of Nursing as well as two Quality Matrons in place who have better oversight of the governance structures designed to pick up issues such as missed Waterlow Pressure Scores. It appears that it is not a case that the clinical governance structures are inadequate – more that the implementation needed some refinement and support, which is now in place.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 3 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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.3

  1. 1

    Provide extensive physical-health recognition training to ward-based teams, including bespoke pressure-ulcer training attended by Lifford ward staff.

    Stated by St Andrew's HealthcareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 November 2023.
  2. 2

    Expand the Birmingham physical healthcare team to three nurses and Associate Specialist/Non-Consultant doctors operating under a clear escalation plan.

    Stated by St Andrew's HealthcareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 November 2023.
  3. 3

    Provide face-to-face pressure-ulcer training to all Lifford ward staff.

    Stated by St Andrew's HealthcareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 November 2023.

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

  1. 1

    The pressure ulcers were not inadequately managed after QEH discharge; they were untreated at QEH and the discharge was premature.

    Stated by St Andrew's HealthcareDisputes 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

Provide extensive physical-health recognition training to ward-based teams, including bespoke pressure-ulcer training attended by Lifford ward staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.4. We have also enquired into the training provided to the team on Lifford ward and in addition to the e-learning, of which you have received a copy, the Charity’s Head of Physical Healthcare arranged in-person bespoke training on pressure ulcer management which was attended by members of the Lifford ward team.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 2 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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

Expand the Birmingham physical healthcare team to three nurses and Associate Specialist/Non-Consultant doctors operating under a clear escalation plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Change 1: Structure of the Physical Healthcare Team The physical healthcare team now comprises three nurses and the Associate Specialist/Non-Consultant doctors, who operate under a clear escalation plan. This enlarged team is designed to ensure a comprehensive approach to both mental and physical health needs.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 3 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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

Provide face-to-face pressure-ulcer training to all Lifford ward staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action 2: Training The Charity is going to ensure all staff on Lifford ward, which cares for the patients at highest risk of pressure sores in Birmingham, receive face to face training on pressure sores.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 4 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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 pressure ulcers were not inadequately managed after QEH discharge; they were untreated at QEH and the discharge was premature.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.6. ████████, Clinical Director at the Charity’s Birmingham Hospital, has also commented that he personally attended upon Mr Mishabi on 3 April 2023 following his return from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital on the evening of 2 April 2023. ████████ clinical opinion is that the Prevention of Future Deaths Report is incorrect to state that “Following discharge from QEH the ulcers proved difficult to manage and deteriorated.” ████████ view, which is supported by the RiO notes that you had access to, is that Mr Mishabi’s pressure ulcers had not been appropriately treated at QEH and he had been prematurely discharged. We can provide you with a further copy of these notes if it would be of assistance.”

Source location

Response from St Andrew's Healthcare
Page 2 · response
Published 6 November 2023

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