PFD report

Iris Joan CARTER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Apr 2025•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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

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 raised2

  1. Failure to adequately record heel-skin inspections in electronic inpatient notes
    Part of recurring concern: Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionablePart of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  2. Failure to properly inspect the skin of patients’ heels for pressure sores
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of pressure ulcers
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.2

  1. Action

    Require the nurse in charge on each shift to check that care assessments, including skin inspection charts, are fully completed.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 April 2025.
  2. Action

    Conduct ward spot checks of care documentation to verify completion of required assessments and skin inspection charts.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 April 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Reviews found no pressure damage before 15 October, when a blister was identified, documented, escalated and assessed.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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 adequately record heel-skin inspections in electronic inpatient notes

Wider context from the report

“2. I heard evidence during the inquest that Iris was at heightened risk of developing pressure sores given her co-morbidities and reduced mobility post her operation and that a Grade 4 pressure sore is the most serious type of pressure sore where bone is exposed and can therefore be at risk of infection. 3. However, apart from one entry on 13th October 2024 in the QEH electronic in patient noting records when it was recorded that Iris was complaining of pain on palpation of her left heel and a pillow was placed under her heel, there is no reference in the noting to it having been observed at any point that Iris had developed a pressure sore to her left heel during her admission at the QEH. 4. This leads to a concern that either the skin to her left heel was not being properly inspected or if it was that such inspections were not adequately noted in the electronic in-patient noting. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable; Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 inspect the skin of patients’ heels for pressure sores

Wider context from the report

“2. I heard evidence during the inquest that Iris was at heightened risk of developing pressure sores given her co-morbidities and reduced mobility post her operation and that a Grade 4 pressure sore is the most serious type of pressure sore where bone is exposed and can therefore be at risk of infection. 3. However, apart from one entry on 13th October 2024 in the QEH electronic in patient noting records when it was recorded that Iris was complaining of pain on palpation of her left heel and a pillow was placed under her heel, there is no reference in the noting to it having been observed at any point that Iris had developed a pressure sore to her left heel during her admission at the QEH. 4. This leads to a concern that either the skin to her left heel was not being properly inspected or if it was that such inspections were not adequately noted in the electronic in-patient noting. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers.

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

Require the nurse in charge on each shift to check that care assessments, including skin inspection charts, are fully completed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While reviewing the incident in November 2024, the omissions in producing appropriate and accurate levels of documentation outlining all areas of Mrs Carter’s skin were highlighted. In response to these findings, the senior sister and her team highlighted the omission in care to the wider nursing team, whilst reiterating the associated risk and the pressure ulcer prevention strategy within the Trust. The actions taken at the time were to update the pressure ulcer prevention ward information board, and to provide feedback on Mrs Carter’s case at the daily safety huddle on the ward. Another change in practice is that the nurse in charge of each shift will carry out a safety check, ensuring all care assessments, specifically the patient skin inspection charts, are fully completed. The senior sister has also been completing spot checks since December 2024.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 4 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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

Conduct ward spot checks of care documentation to verify completion of required assessments and skin inspection charts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While reviewing the incident in November 2024, the omissions in producing appropriate and accurate levels of documentation outlining all areas of Mrs Carter’s skin were highlighted. In response to these findings, the senior sister and her team highlighted the omission in care to the wider nursing team, whilst reiterating the associated risk and the pressure ulcer prevention strategy within the Trust. The actions taken at the time were to update the pressure ulcer prevention ward information board, and to provide feedback on Mrs Carter’s case at the daily safety huddle on the ward. Another change in practice is that the nurse in charge of each shift will carry out a safety check, ensuring all care assessments, specifically the patient skin inspection charts, are fully completed. The senior sister has also been completing spot checks since December 2024.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 4 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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

Reviews found no pressure damage before 15 October, when a blister was identified, documented, escalated and assessed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our review of the documentation outlined in the medical noting documents there was no pressure damage noted on 09.10.24 at 14:18 by the Ortho geriatrician team, who noted review of the lower limb and noted oedema present to Mrs Carter’s leg.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 3 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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.5

  1. 1

    Share the findings from the pressure-ulcer incident review at the June 2025 Tissue Viability Team meeting.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 April 2025.
  2. 2

    Produce a daily Radar report that more readily distinguishes Trust-acquired from non-Trust-acquired pressure ulcers.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 April 2025.
  3. 3

    Explore electronic transfer of daily Radar pressure-ulcer data into the clinical referrals spreadsheet.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 April 2025.
  4. 4

    Audit manual transfer of daily Radar pressure-ulcer data into the clinical referrals spreadsheet.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 April 2025.
  5. 5

    Disseminate pressure-ulcer documentation learning and prevention strategy through the ward information board, nursing team feedback and daily safety huddles.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 April 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Transfer documentation identified the pressure damage and was provided before transfer, despite no documented nurse-to-nurse handover.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    Clinical notes identified an air mattress, contradicting the isolated documentation that recorded soft foam.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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

Share the findings from the pressure-ulcer incident review at the June 2025 Tissue Viability Team meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Assurance: The findings will be shared at June 2025 Tissue Viability Team meeting. Tissue Viability and the Radar team have liaised to produce a daily Radar report that more readily identifies Trust and non-Trust acquired pressure ulcers. An audit of manual transfer of data from daily Radar report to clinical referrals spreadsheet is in progress. The electronic transfer of data from the daily Radar report to the clinical referrals sheet is currently being explored.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 4 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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

Produce a daily Radar report that more readily distinguishes Trust-acquired from non-Trust-acquired pressure ulcers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Assurance: The findings will be shared at June 2025 Tissue Viability Team meeting. Tissue Viability and the Radar team have liaised to produce a daily Radar report that more readily identifies Trust and non-Trust acquired pressure ulcers. An audit of manual transfer of data from daily Radar report to clinical referrals spreadsheet is in progress. The electronic transfer of data from the daily Radar report to the clinical referrals sheet is currently being explored.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 4 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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

Explore electronic transfer of daily Radar pressure-ulcer data into the clinical referrals spreadsheet.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Assurance: The findings will be shared at June 2025 Tissue Viability Team meeting. Tissue Viability and the Radar team have liaised to produce a daily Radar report that more readily identifies Trust and non-Trust acquired pressure ulcers. An audit of manual transfer of data from daily Radar report to clinical referrals spreadsheet is in progress. The electronic transfer of data from the daily Radar report to the clinical referrals sheet is currently being explored.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 4 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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 manual transfer of daily Radar pressure-ulcer data into the clinical referrals spreadsheet.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Assurance: The findings will be shared at June 2025 Tissue Viability Team meeting. Tissue Viability and the Radar team have liaised to produce a daily Radar report that more readily identifies Trust and non-Trust acquired pressure ulcers. An audit of manual transfer of data from daily Radar report to clinical referrals spreadsheet is in progress. The electronic transfer of data from the daily Radar report to the clinical referrals sheet is currently being explored.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 4 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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

Disseminate pressure-ulcer documentation learning and prevention strategy through the ward information board, nursing team feedback and daily safety huddles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While reviewing the incident in November 2024, the omissions in producing appropriate and accurate levels of documentation outlining all areas of Mrs Carter’s skin were highlighted. In response to these findings, the senior sister and her team highlighted the omission in care to the wider nursing team, whilst reiterating the associated risk and the pressure ulcer prevention strategy within the Trust. The actions taken at the time were to update the pressure ulcer prevention ward information board, and to provide feedback on Mrs Carter’s case at the daily safety huddle on the ward. Another change in practice is that the nurse in charge of each shift will carry out a safety check, ensuring all care assessments, specifically the patient skin inspection charts, are fully completed. The senior sister has also been completing spot checks since December 2024.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 4 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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

Transfer documentation identified the pressure damage and was provided before transfer, despite no documented nurse-to-nurse handover.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ward described the patient’s skin as having a “blister is present to heel” in the morning nursing care plan before she left for transfer to Ann Marie Howes Centre. There is no documentation outlining any nurse-to-nurse handover, neither what was discussed regarding Mrs Carter’s pressure areas. We would like to apologise for this and can confirm that the presence of a pressure area was highlighted in the nurse discharge noting. The Standardised Transfer of Care Document (STOC) did include the level of pressure damage and identified the area on Mrs Carter’s skin. The team at Ann Marie Howes would have been in receipt of this document, prior to the agreement to transfer Mrs Carter into their care.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 1 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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 notes identified an air mattress, contradicting the isolated documentation that recorded soft foam.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following identification of a high Waterlow score, the mattress was incorrectly documented as soft foam, however documentation in the clinical noting, entered by a physiotherapist on multiple occasions, identified it as an air mattress – specifically documenting that the patient was struggling to mobilise from the mattress, due to the movements from the air changing cycles.”

Source location

Response from UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Page 2 · response
Published 24 April 2025

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