PFD report

James Patrick PEARSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 May 2024•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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. Delays in obtaining blood products after major haemorrhage protocol activation
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide required blood products promptly for transfusionPart of recurring concern: Unreliable major haemorrhage response arrangements
  2. Lack of documentation of patient observations
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custody
  3. Insufficient doctor staffing capacity in the department
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient medical staffing capacity for timely patient carePart of recurring concern: Insufficient safe staffing and senior cover out of hours
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

    Audit compliance with the Major Haemorrhage Blood Protocol across all UHB sites.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  2. Action

    Reiterate observation-recording standards at Emergency Department huddles.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  3. Action

    Complete demand-and-capacity modelling to define the substantive workforce needed for additional resilience.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 May 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    A blood fridge is not being provided because group O blood is nationally scarce and Heartlands is not a Major Trauma Centre.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Delays in obtaining blood products after major haemorrhage protocol activation

Wider context from the report

“9. I further heard from ████████ that the blood products at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital are not kept in the ED, and are kept some distance away, and could take up to 20 minutes to obtain after the major haemorrhage protocol is activated. Whilst this is unlikely to have affected the outcome for James, due to his sudden deterioration, I am concerned that a delay in obtaining blood products could lead to future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide required blood products promptly for transfusion; Unreliable major haemorrhage response arrangements.

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

Lack of documentation of patient observations

Wider context from the report

“3. During the inquest, I heard that James was attached to a monitor, which was taking his observations every 15 minutes. None of these observations, however, were documented. This is of concern, as it is not possible to know at what point James began to decline. I am concerned that lack of proper documented observations could lead to future deaths, as staff will not be able to follow the observation pattern and notice a decline in presentation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custody.

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 doctor staffing capacity in the department

Wider context from the report

“6. ████████ told me in evidence that during the time since his last review by a Doctor at 03.16am, and his cardiac arrest at 04.25am, James was not seen by a Doctor, and only Nurses were available in the department. The only Doctor on shift at that time was dealing with another very unwell patient, who also required resuscitation. 7. ████████ told me that at the point in time the deterioration in James was noted, sometime between 04.00-04.20am, James should have received fluids, and in his opinion, if he had done so, on the balance of probabilities, he would not have had a cardiac arrest. He added that this was beyond what he would expect a nurse to adduce, however, if the Doctor had been present, he believed this would have been done. 8. I am therefore concerned that there were not enough Doctors in the department at the time, meaning that there is no resilience to deal effectively with more than one very unwell patient at any given time. If this is not addressed, there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient medical staffing capacity for timely patient care; Insufficient safe staffing and senior cover out of hours.

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

Audit compliance with the Major Haemorrhage Blood Protocol across all UHB sites.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of all incidents involving activation of the MHP within Heartlands Emergency Department since Mr Pearson’s death has been undertaken. This did not demonstrate any incidents regarding delays in receipt of blood once the MHP was activated. A full audit is underway by the Hospital Transfusion Group to review overall compliance to the Major Haemorrhage Blood Protocol across all UHB sites, the outcome of this will be reported to the Trust Transfusion Committee.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Reiterate observation-recording standards at Emergency Department huddles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The standards set out above and expected documentation has been reiterated at Emergency Department huddles to ensure that recording within noting is robust and will be audited as part of the action plan following this Serious Incident Investigation to provide assurance that these standards are being adhered to.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 2 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Complete demand-and-capacity modelling to define the substantive workforce needed for additional resilience.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst we are satisfied that our current model provides resilient staffing to the mean attendance profile and that our processes enable resilience of staffing with clear escalations where minimum staffing is predicted to not be achieved, we are currently reviewing the demand and capacity for the unit. This is to ensure our staffing is modelled correctly to ensure the baseline for the substantive workforce is correct. Although we meet RCEM criteria in terms of staffing on duty, to meet this we utilise a number of bank staff. The demand and capacity modelling will ensure the unit has identified what the substantive workforce should look like, to provide additional resilience. This work will be completed by August 2024.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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 compliance with observation-recording standards as part of the Serious Incident Investigation action plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The standards set out above and expected documentation has been reiterated at Emergency Department huddles to ensure that recording within noting is robust and will be audited as part of the action plan following this Serious Incident Investigation to provide assurance that these standards are being adhered to.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 2 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

A blood fridge is not being provided because group O blood is nationally scarce and Heartlands is not a Major Trauma Centre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The recommendation to consider a blood fridge in BHH ED has been discussed in the Hospital Transfusion team. There are significant consequences to putting a fridge in the ED at BHH, not least that group O blood (which is what would need to be in the fridge if it is being used to support immediate transfusion) is in short supply nationally and needs to be used only for those patients that require it. This includes not stocking it in locations where it is unlikely to be used, which includes EDs (such as Heartlands) which are not in Major Trauma Centres.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Current emergency department staffing, rota review and escalation processes are considered sufficiently resilient and meet RCEM minimum criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To ensure we continue to meet minimum staffing levels in the ED there is a twice weekly forward look meeting with the rota team to confirm minimum numbers are met, and to be aware of where there are dips in cover and these undergo a process of escalation via the ED general manager in order to consider all mitigation options including agency use, locum, support from other specialty teams at middle grade level as examples.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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 blood arrived within 15 minutes after major haemorrhage protocol activation, so the relevant delay was in requesting blood and activating the protocol.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Availability of blood products within the emergency department You heard evidence that it can take up to 20 minutes to obtain blood products within the emergency department following activation of the major haemorrhage protocol. Whilst this delay was unlikely to have affected the outcome for Mr Pearson, you are concerned that delays in blood products being available could result in future deaths.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Existing monitoring and NEWS2 procedures are considered sufficient despite observations not being documented every 15 minutes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst observations are not documented every 15 minutes, they are monitored and any trigger actioned according to the Trust Acutely Ill Adult NEWS2 Procedure AcutelyIllAdultsNewscoreprocedure.pdf. (NEWS2 is a standardised National Early Warning Score devised to standardise the assessment and response to acute illness or deterioration.)”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 2 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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.2

  1. 1

    Revise the report to clarify that the unit is a Trauma Unit, not a Major Trauma Centre.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  2. 2

    Report the Major Haemorrhage Blood Protocol audit outcome to the Trust Transfusion Committee.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 May 2024.

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

Revise the report to clarify that the unit is a Trauma Unit, not a Major Trauma Centre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Unfortunately, the report presented at inquest mistakenly stated the unit was a Major Trauma Centre, which it is not and should have advised it is a Trauma Unit. I would like to apologise for this error in terminology and assure you the report has been revised to clarify this point.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 1 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Report the Major Haemorrhage Blood Protocol audit outcome to the Trust Transfusion Committee.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of all incidents involving activation of the MHP within Heartlands Emergency Department since Mr Pearson’s death has been undertaken. This did not demonstrate any incidents regarding delays in receipt of blood once the MHP was activated. A full audit is underway by the Hospital Transfusion Group to review overall compliance to the Major Haemorrhage Blood Protocol across all UHB sites, the outcome of this will be reported to the Trust Transfusion Committee.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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