PFD report

Dennis George Redmore · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Aug 2017•South Wales Central

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
10

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 raised4

  1. Lack of management oversight to ensure required observations are carried out
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
  2. Failure to carry out neurological observations at the required frequency
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to carry out required neurological observations
  3. Failure to record observations
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custody
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.3

  1. Action

    Reiterate the leadership and delegation responsibilities of the nurse in charge to the AMU nursing team.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 November 2017.
  2. Action

    Remind staff to follow ABMU neurological observation guidelines and disseminate the guidance through nursing leadership and professional forums.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 November 2017.
  3. Action

    Audit October AMU fall-patient documentation for compliance with neurological observation requirements and identify improvement and support needs.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 November 2017.

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 management oversight to ensure required observations are carried out

Wider context from the report

“(1) There where clear failures to monitor the deceased neurologically with gaps of several hours between observations. He should have been monitored every 30 minutes but was in fact, according to the evidence monitored at 20:15, 21:00, 22:00, 23:00, 01:00, 04:00, 07:30 and 08:50. “NEWS” observations were carried out and one was carried out at 06:20 on the morning of the 7th March which revealed an elevation in blood pressure and pulse. That was not acted upon for approximately another hour. The evidence suggested that the observations may have undertaken but not recorded. The clear concern is that observations were not carried out in accordance with local and national guidance. There was no clear evidence in this case that the lack of observations had in fact caused or contributed to the death of Mr Redmore but this must give rise to a concern for the welfare of others. No appropriate management of the nurse responsible for the observations was in place to ensure the checks were carried out. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation 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

Failure to carry out neurological observations at the required frequency

Wider context from the report

“(1) There where clear failures to monitor the deceased neurologically with gaps of several hours between observations. He should have been monitored every 30 minutes but was in fact, according to the evidence monitored at 20:15, 21:00, 22:00, 23:00, 01:00, 04:00, 07:30 and 08:50. “NEWS” observations were carried out and one was carried out at 06:20 on the morning of the 7th March which revealed an elevation in blood pressure and pulse. That was not acted upon for approximately another hour. The evidence suggested that the observations may have undertaken but not recorded. The clear concern is that observations were not carried out in accordance with local and national guidance. There was no clear evidence in this case that the lack of observations had in fact caused or contributed to the death of Mr Redmore but this must give rise to a concern for the welfare of others. No appropriate management of the nurse responsible for the observations was in place to ensure the checks were carried out. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to carry out required neurological observations.

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 record observations

Wider context from the report

“(1) There where clear failures to monitor the deceased neurologically with gaps of several hours between observations. He should have been monitored every 30 minutes but was in fact, according to the evidence monitored at 20:15, 21:00, 22:00, 23:00, 01:00, 04:00, 07:30 and 08:50. “NEWS” observations were carried out and one was carried out at 06:20 on the morning of the 7th March which revealed an elevation in blood pressure and pulse. That was not acted upon for approximately another hour. The evidence suggested that the observations may have undertaken but not recorded. The clear concern is that observations were not carried out in accordance with local and national guidance. There was no clear evidence in this case that the lack of observations had in fact caused or contributed to the death of Mr Redmore but this must give rise to a concern for the welfare of others. No appropriate management of the nurse responsible for the observations was in place to ensure the checks were carried out. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; 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

Delay in acting on abnormal NEWS observations

Wider context from the report

“(1) There where clear failures to monitor the deceased neurologically with gaps of several hours between observations. He should have been monitored every 30 minutes but was in fact, according to the evidence monitored at 20:15, 21:00, 22:00, 23:00, 01:00, 04:00, 07:30 and 08:50. “NEWS” observations were carried out and one was carried out at 06:20 on the morning of the 7th March which revealed an elevation in blood pressure and pulse. That was not acted upon for approximately another hour. The evidence suggested that the observations may have undertaken but not recorded. The clear concern is that observations were not carried out in accordance with local and national guidance. There was no clear evidence in this case that the lack of observations had in fact caused or contributed to the death of Mr Redmore but this must give rise to a concern for the welfare of others. No appropriate management of the nurse responsible for the observations was in place to ensure the checks were carried out. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical Early Warning Score systems for deterioration; Unreliable escalation of abnormal clinical observations.

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

Reiterate the leadership and delegation responsibilities of the nurse in charge to the AMU nursing team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Ward sister to reiterate to the nursing team on AMU the Leadership and delegation responsibilities of the nurse in charge of each shift”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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

Remind staff to follow ABMU neurological observation guidelines and disseminate the guidance through nursing leadership and professional forums.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Staff to be reminded of the need to adhere to the ABMU neurological guidelines”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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 October AMU fall-patient documentation for compliance with neurological observation requirements and identify improvement and support needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• For the month of October 2017 documentation to be reviewed (audit) on all patients who have sustained a fall on AMU which will include compliance with neurological observations”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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.7

  1. 1

    Undertake a training needs analysis for ALERT and Beech training requirements in AMU.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 November 2017.
  2. 2

    Audit NEWS compliance across all acute wards through a rolling programme and report the results through governance forums.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 November 2017.
  3. 3

    Monitor the action plan monthly through senior matron, falls scrutiny and Health Board arrangements to ensure compliance with timescales.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 November 2017.
  4. 4

    Review the Falls Policy and trial revised documentation, then develop and seek approval for revisions aligned with national guidelines.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 November 2017.
  5. 5

    Share AMU fall-audit learning with staff and agree resulting actions for implementation.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 November 2017.
  6. 6

    Review the action plan through the Unit Nurse and Medical Directors and provide a summary report to the Quality and Patient Safety Committee.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 November 2017.
  7. 7

    Operate the Spot the Sick Patient Steering Group to improve recognition, treatment and outcomes for deteriorating hospital patients and develop consensus on best-practice standardisation.

    Stated by Swansea Bay University Local Health BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 November 2017.

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

Undertake a training needs analysis for ALERT and Beech training requirements in AMU.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Training Needs Analysis (TNA) to be undertaken in relation to need for ALERT and Beach training in AMU”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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 NEWS compliance across all acute wards through a rolling programme and report the results through governance forums.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Outreach team are currently auditing NEWS compliance across all acute wards in a rolling programme”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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

Monitor the action plan monthly through senior matron, falls scrutiny and Health Board arrangements to ensure compliance with timescales.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Monitor this action plan monthly to ensure compliance and adherence to timescale”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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

Review the Falls Policy and trial revised documentation, then develop and seek approval for revisions aligned with national guidelines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Feedback from review of current Falls Policy and revised documentation currently on trial in Princess of Wales”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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

Share AMU fall-audit learning with staff and agree resulting actions for implementation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Learning from the above audit to be shared with staff in AMU and actions agreed for implementation”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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

Review the action plan through the Unit Nurse and Medical Directors and provide a summary report to the Quality and Patient Safety Committee.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, the above actions will be reviewed by the Unit Nurse Director and Unit Medical Director and a summary report will be provided to the Quality and Patient Safety Committee in April 2018.”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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

Operate the Spot the Sick Patient Steering Group to improve recognition, treatment and outcomes for deteriorating hospital patients and develop consensus on best-practice standardisation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the 10th March 2017 a Spot the Sick Patient Steering Group was set up which meet on a bi-monthly basis. One of the aims of the Group is to improve the recognition, treatment and outcome of deteriorating patients in hospital. Enclosed is a copy of the Terms of Reference of the Group for your information.”

Source location

2017-0315-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 28 November 2017

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