PFD report

Mr Edward Cowey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Oct 2020•Derby and Derbyshire

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

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 raised5

  1. Failure to ensure doctors are aware of relevant Trust local policies
  2. Falls form failing to direct doctors to relevant head injury guidance
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuries
  3. Failure to keep patient transfer information on one database
    Part of recurring concern: Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionablePart of recurring concern: Unreliable healthcare patient transfer processes
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    NICE guidance already covers prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin after head injury, contrary to the concern that guidance excludes prophylactic anticoagulation.

    Stated by NHS EnglandDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 ensure doctors are aware of relevant Trust local policies

Wider context from the report

“2. Trust local policy regarding treatment for head injuries is not consistent with NICE Guidelines and doctors cannot be expected to be aware of all trust local policies; ”

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

Falls form failing to direct doctors to relevant head injury guidance

Wider context from the report

“4. The Trusts local falls form does not direct doctors to the relevant guidance regarding head injuries simply asks if a CT head scans indicated ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuries.

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 keep patient transfer information on one database

Wider context from the report

“1. That patient electronic and paper based transfer information is not kept on one database. Mr Coweys’ handover notes were kept on extra Med, his neurological observations on Patient Track and the falls form on his hard copy notes; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable; Unreliable healthcare patient transfer 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

Head injury treatment policies failing to align with NICE Guidelines

Wider context from the report

“2. Trust local policy regarding treatment for head injuries is not consistent with NICE Guidelines and doctors cannot be expected to be aware of all trust local policies; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuries.

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

Anticoagulation guidance failing to cover preventative anticoagulation

Wider context from the report

“3. Anticoagulation guideless do not cover a situation where anticoagulation is being given as a preventative measure as opposed to a treatment; and ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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

NICE guidance already covers prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin after head injury, contrary to the concern that guidance excludes prophylactic anticoagulation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Dr ████████, The Trusts Medical Director (Quality and Safety) Consultant in Emergency Medicine has contacted NICE to clarify the aspect of the guidance that refers to patients receiving anticoagulation. NICE are clear that any patient whether receiving low-molecular weight heparin for prophylactic or therapeutic reasons are included in this guidance. Consequently, the Trust will be explicit about this in the UHBD guidance. The Trusts Medical Director has also suggested to NICE that CG176 is updated to reflect this advice.”

Source location

2020-0205-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement-Redacted.pdf
Page 5 · response
Published 3 December 2020

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

  1. 1

    Earlier CT scanning or regular neurological observations would not have prevented the outcome because deterioration was sudden and unpredictable.

    Stated by NHS EnglandDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Earlier CT scanning or regular neurological observations would not have prevented the outcome because deterioration was sudden and unpredictable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• It was the opinion of the consultants at the review meeting that the deterioration of the patient was sudden and unpredictable. Therefore, even if the bleed had been detected earlier and the patient had been on regular neurological observations, the deterioration could not have been prevented and the outcome would have been the same.”

Source location

2020-0205-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement-Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 3 December 2020

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