PFD report

Zoe Amanda Knight · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Sep 2020•Manchester South

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
2

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. Overlap between aortic dissection and other cardiac-condition symptoms impeding or delaying diagnosis
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to suspected aortic dissection
  2. Failure to implement an ‘aortic pain’ discriminator for chest-pain triage
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable operation of the Manchester Triage System
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

    Follow up with relevant professional organisations to improve use of NICE guidance on aortic dissection.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 November 2020.
  2. Action

    Complete surveillance review of CG95, consulting experts and deciding whether additional aortic dissection guidance was needed.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 November 2020.

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

  1. Position

    NICE decided not to add more detailed aortic dissection diagnosis guidance because topic experts considered this inappropriate.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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

Overlap between aortic dissection and other cardiac-condition symptoms impeding or delaying diagnosis

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard from Dr ████████, a Consultant Cardiologist at Tameside general Hospital that aortic dissection is a well-recognised, but rare condition. It has some characteristic symptoms, but these are by no means definitively diagnostic. 2. There is an overlap of the symptoms of aortic dissection with other cardiac conditions, which can impede or delay the process of diagnosis. Rupture of the aorta following dissection as suffered by Mrs Knight is a catastrophic event. 3. Dr ████████ was aware of the recommendation made by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch – Delayed Recognition of Acute Aortic Dissection (Healthcare Safety Investigation I2017/002b – January 2020 Edition) which contained Safety recommendation R/2020/066: “It is recommended that the Manchester Triage International Reference Group considers the addition of ‘aortic pain’ to the Manchester Triage System as a discriminator for chest pain, to raise awareness of acute aortic dissection as a potential cause.” 4. It does not appear that this recommendation has been implemented. 5. Dr ████████’s evidence was that awareness of aortic dissection was primarily through case-based learning but acknowledged that the recommendation from thee Healthcare Safety Investigation Report above would additionally raise awareness at the triage stage. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to suspected aortic dissection.

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 implement an ‘aortic pain’ discriminator for chest-pain triage

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard from Dr ████████, a Consultant Cardiologist at Tameside general Hospital that aortic dissection is a well-recognised, but rare condition. It has some characteristic symptoms, but these are by no means definitively diagnostic. 2. There is an overlap of the symptoms of aortic dissection with other cardiac conditions, which can impede or delay the process of diagnosis. Rupture of the aorta following dissection as suffered by Mrs Knight is a catastrophic event. 3. Dr ████████ was aware of the recommendation made by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch – Delayed Recognition of Acute Aortic Dissection (Healthcare Safety Investigation I2017/002b – January 2020 Edition) which contained Safety recommendation R/2020/066: “It is recommended that the Manchester Triage International Reference Group considers the addition of ‘aortic pain’ to the Manchester Triage System as a discriminator for chest pain, to raise awareness of acute aortic dissection as a potential cause.” 4. It does not appear that this recommendation has been implemented. 5. Dr ████████’s evidence was that awareness of aortic dissection was primarily through case-based learning but acknowledged that the recommendation from thee Healthcare Safety Investigation Report above would additionally raise awareness at the triage stage. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable operation of the Manchester Triage System.

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

Follow up with relevant professional organisations to improve use of NICE guidance on aortic dissection.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of improving awareness and learning on this topic, the responsibility for the education and training of healthcare professionals rests with the relevant professional bodies, such as the Royal Colleges, the GMC and Health Education England. We regularly engage with these organisations to improve use of our guidelines, and we will follow up in relation to this issue.”

Source location

Response-from-NICE-2020-0168-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2020

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 surveillance review of CG95, consulting experts and deciding whether additional aortic dissection guidance was needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Reviewing this guideline”

Source location

Response-from-NICE-2020-0168-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2020

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

NICE decided not to add more detailed aortic dissection diagnosis guidance because topic experts considered this inappropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During this review, NICE also considered whether more detailed guidance on the diagnosis of aortic dissection (or acute aortic syndrome) should be included in the guideline.”

Source location

Response-from-NICE-2020-0168-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2020

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Education and training of healthcare professionals rests with relevant professional bodies, including the Royal Colleges, GMC and Health Education England.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Education and training of healthcare professionals rests with relevant professional bodies, including the Royal Colleges, GMC and Health Education England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of improving awareness and learning on this topic, the responsibility for the education and training of healthcare professionals rests with the relevant professional bodies, such as the Royal Colleges, the GMC and Health Education England. We regularly engage with these organisations to improve use of our guidelines, and we will follow up in relation to this issue.”

Source location

Response-from-NICE-2020-0168-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2020

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