PFD report

Alvin Roy Black · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Apr 2021•Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

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 raised3

  1. Failure to maintain adequate hygiene and deep cleaning in non-clinical Health Care Centre areas
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain effective environmental cleaning in healthcare settings
  2. Failure to conduct required VTE risk reviews for anti-coagulation decisions
  3. Failure of the clinical system to detect missed VTE risk reviews
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 maintain adequate hygiene and deep cleaning in non-clinical Health Care Centre areas

Wider context from the report

“(1) Extensive evidence was heard concerning the poor state of cleanliness of the Health Care Centre at the Prison. Evidence confirmed that the ground floor of the Health Care Centre was not part of the clinical areas for which the Northamptonshire NHS Foundation Trust, the providers of health care at the Prison, were responsible: this area remained the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Whilst Health Care patients would regularly be located there, designated ‘vulnerable prisoners’ were also routinely resident in this location and, in respect of this cohort, there would be both a high turnover and sometimes challenging hygiene issues accompanying them. The evidence confirmed that the levels of hygiene in the common ways, kitchens, sinks, showers and the cells was poor and that this was of concern to prisoner patients and medical staff alike. Evidence also confirmed that no ‘deep cleans’ took place in these areas save where blood, vomit or a ‘dirty protest’ was specifically involved. I am concerned that such poor levels of hygiene give rise to the risk of prisoners returning from surgery, with perhaps compromised immune systems, facing a significant risk of infection, itself giving rise to a risk of future death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain effective environmental cleaning in healthcare settings.

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 conduct required VTE risk reviews for anti-coagulation decisions

Wider context from the report

“(2) Evidence disclosed, and was conceded by the Trust, that there had been a missed opportunity for consideration of whether or not anti-coagulation therapy should have been provided to Mr Black following the decision that he remain in Addenbrookes Hospital over-night on the 13th November following his surgery. Although she had been prompted by a pharmacist to review the VTE risk once the decision had been made that it was “unsafe” to discharge Mr Black on the afternoon of the 13th, the Senior House Officer involved failed to conduct the review as required by both NICE and Trust policy. Although this was on the face of it an individual failure by the SHO, I am concerned that (a) the system in place at the time did not pick up on this error; (b) that the SHO’s evidence indicated that the course she took was, in her experience, standard practice; and (c) in different clinical circumstances, the failure to ensure that the appropriate review took place gives rise to the risk of future (preventable) death. ”

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 of the clinical system to detect missed VTE risk reviews

Wider context from the report

“(2) Evidence disclosed, and was conceded by the Trust, that there had been a missed opportunity for consideration of whether or not anti-coagulation therapy should have been provided to Mr Black following the decision that he remain in Addenbrookes Hospital over-night on the 13th November following his surgery. Although she had been prompted by a pharmacist to review the VTE risk once the decision had been made that it was “unsafe” to discharge Mr Black on the afternoon of the 13th, the Senior House Officer involved failed to conduct the review as required by both NICE and Trust policy. Although this was on the face of it an individual failure by the SHO, I am concerned that (a) the system in place at the time did not pick up on this error; (b) that the SHO’s evidence indicated that the course she took was, in her experience, standard practice; and (c) in different clinical circumstances, the failure to ensure that the appropriate review took place gives rise to the risk of future (preventable) death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Official responses located
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.