Faizan Qadeer Nazar · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Apr 2022•West Yorkshire (Western)

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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.

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure to provide patients with written reminders of forthcoming appointments
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable arrangement and communication of patient appointments and follow-up

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Spire Harpenden Hospital

    Send appointment confirmation letters and 48-hour reminder text messages for appointments booked on the hospital management system.

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

  1. Spire Harpenden Hospital

    The Regulation 28 concern is factually incorrect because the evidence did not establish that Spire lacked customary written appointment reminders.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. Spire Harpenden Hospital

    Follow-up arrangements for recommended but unbooked appointments rest with the individual clinician, patient, consultant and GP rather than Spire.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Failure to provide patients with written reminders of forthcoming appointments

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from Dr ████████, Faizan’s treating Consultant Psychiatrist who told me that it was not customary at Spire Harpenden Hospital to forward written reminders of a patients forthcoming appointments. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable arrangement and communication of patient appointments and follow-up.

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

Send appointment confirmation letters and 48-hour reminder text messages for appointments booked on the hospital management system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b) Process for sending reminders of an appointment that has been made”

Source location

Response from Spire Healthcare
Page 3 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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 Regulation 28 concern is factually incorrect because the evidence did not establish that Spire lacked customary written appointment reminders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having now had an opportunity to consider the recording of the evidence that was provided to the Court, we believe that the concern expressed in the Regulation 28 Report is factually incorrect. At no point during his evidence did ████████ state that it was not customary to forward written reminders of a patient’s forthcoming appointments. Had he stated as such, this would in any event have been incorrect (for the reasons we have set out below).”

Source location

Response from Spire Healthcare
Page 2 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Follow-up arrangements for recommended but unbooked appointments rest with the individual clinician, patient, consultant and GP rather than Spire.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As is industry standard, Consultants at Spire are not employed but practise on a self-employed basis, under practising privileges. Patients’ appointments are typically booked via a consultant’s private secretary. It is noted that Mr Nazir was able to effectively use this system and that he made appointments with ████████ via his secretary on more than one occasion. It should be noted that Spire is not responsible for the diaries of individual Consultants with practising privileges at the hospital. This responsibility lies with the individual clinician, and they make their own arrangements for diarising appointments with their secretary. Once a patient has decided they wish to book an appointment, the same is confirmed with the clinician and then entered onto the Hospital’s system.”

Source location

Response from Spire Healthcare
Page 3 · response
Published 26 April 2022

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026