PFD report

MARY ANNE MELLOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 May 2021•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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
11

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 raised1

  1. Failure to ensure use of 3D reconstruction when reporting aortic stent surveillance CT scans
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety guidance for CT scanning and reportingPart of recurring concern: Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging
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.9

  1. Action

    Implement and circulate a formal policy requiring multiplanar views for reporting all relevant images.

    Stated by Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 May 2021.
  2. Action

    Perform and report relevant images in-house, retaining images demonstrating use of multiplanar reconstruction instead of outsourcing them.

    Stated by Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 May 2021.
  3. Action

    Conduct annual audits of compliance with the multiplanar-view reporting policy and present results to divisional governance meetings.

    Stated by Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 May 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The reporter normally uses MPR tools, so the concern that their use was not assured is disputed.

    Stated by Medica Reporting LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 ensure use of 3D reconstruction when reporting aortic stent surveillance CT scans

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following a thorough investigation, I HCH recognised that the leak was not identified on the CT scans in 2019 and 2020 because 3D reconstruction was not used when they were reported. LHCH have amended their reporting protocol for aortic stent surveillance accordingly and requested that Medica, who continue to report such scans for LHCH, do the same. However, as of the date of the inquest, LHCH had received no response from Medica and could not assure me that Medica are using 3D reconstruction to report this type of scan and/or intend to do so in future. (2) I am therefore concerned that other patients at LHCH with aortic stents remain at risk of leaks not being identified, potentially depriving them of elective surgical management before life threatening complications occur. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety guidance for CT scanning and reporting; Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging.

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

Implement and circulate a formal policy requiring multiplanar views for reporting all relevant images.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to ensure this event does not reoccur, we have written a formal policy which has been approved and circulated to all relevant clinicians. In it, it states that all images of this nature must be reported using multi planar view.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Liverpool-Heart-and-Chest-Hospital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

Perform and report relevant images in-house, retaining images demonstrating use of multiplanar reconstruction instead of outsourcing them.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the meeting held with Medica on the 19th May 2021, it was agreed that LHCH will perform and report in house for this type of image as we are able to store images that demonstrate MPR has been used and they will no longer be outsourced to Medica.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Liverpool-Heart-and-Chest-Hospital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

Conduct annual audits of compliance with the multiplanar-view reporting policy and present results to divisional governance meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to ensure this event does not reoccur, we have written a formal policy which has been approved and circulated to all relevant clinicians. In it, it states that all images of this nature must be reported using multi planar view.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Liverpool-Heart-and-Chest-Hospital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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 radiologist reporting, provide case-level feedback, and share relevant learning through regular reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Medica continually audits radiologist reporting (5% sample of this type of work for each radiologist) and provides opportunities for learning from error. Medica provides feedback to individual Medica radiologists on a case-by-case basis where errors have been made and will highlight the use of good MPR technique for analysis. Medica regularly highlights areas of opportunity to improve observation and interpretation for reporters. Cases of interest are shared with all reporting radiologists in a monthly review. This case will be shared with our radiologists as an action of the Medica RCA for this case (initiated and completed following notification of the inquest, attachment 1.5).”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

Continue highlighting the importance of multiplanar reformat tools to reporting radiologists.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Medica continually audits radiologist reporting (5% sample of this type of work for each radiologist) and provides opportunities for learning from error. Medica provides feedback to individual Medica radiologists on a case-by-case basis where errors have been made and will highlight the use of good MPR technique for analysis. Medica regularly highlights areas of opportunity to improve observation and interpretation for reporters. Cases of interest are shared with all reporting radiologists in a monthly review. This case will be shared with our radiologists as an action of the Medica RCA for this case (initiated and completed following notification of the inquest, attachment 1.5).”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

Train radiologists to use PACS multiplanar reformats when interpreting and reporting cross-sectional imaging.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Medica routinely trains reporters in the use of the Radiology image viewing system (Medica Insignia PACS system) including the use of Multiplanar Reformatting (MPR) for the interpretation and reporting of all cross-sectional imaging (CT and some MRI). MPR is a term used to describe the type of 3D reconstruction that would be used in the case of the deceased.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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 learning from this case with reporting radiologists.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Medica continually audits radiologist reporting (5% sample of this type of work for each radiologist) and provides opportunities for learning from error. Medica provides feedback to individual Medica radiologists on a case-by-case basis where errors have been made and will highlight the use of good MPR technique for analysis. Medica regularly highlights areas of opportunity to improve observation and interpretation for reporters. Cases of interest are shared with all reporting radiologists in a monthly review. This case will be shared with our radiologists as an action of the Medica RCA for this case (initiated and completed following notification of the inquest, attachment 1.5).”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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 case reviewers to consider the importance of multiplanar reformats when reviewing reporting discrepancies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. It is not possible to monitor/measure the use of MPR tools in a simple or meaningful way but experienced analysis of reporting discrepancies can lead the reviewer to highlight this to reporting radiologists when the reviewer considers that this may be a contributory factor. Medica will as a result of this notice, remind case reviewers of the importance of the use of MPRs.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

Refresh and publish training materials highlighting PACS multiplanar reformat functionality for reporting radiologists.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. In September 2020 Medica prepared an in-house training video which includes a section on MPR (3D) technique. This was notified to all reporting radiologists and placed in the online learning folder There is a training video and Radiology Reporting Process Guide for post training reference available to reporters at all times (Attachments 1.3 Screenshots from training video and 1.4 Radiology Reporting Process Guide).”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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 reporter normally uses MPR tools, so the concern that their use was not assured is disputed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The above items evidence the importance that Medica places upon MPR functionality in CT reporting. The reporter in this case uses MPR in their normal workflow. It is therefore possible that it was employed at the time of reporting this study, but the endoleak was not recognised by the reporter. This is termed an observational error and is a recognised error in radiology. Medica places great importance on informing reporters of errors made by others to maximise learning opportunities and reduce error in the future as much as possible. We will be sharing the learning from this case with our reporters.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

MPR tool use cannot be monitored or measured in a simple or meaningful way.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. It is not possible to monitor/measure the use of MPR tools in a simple or meaningful way but experienced analysis of reporting discrepancies can lead the reviewer to highlight this to reporting radiologists when the reviewer considers that this may be a contributory factor. Medica will as a result of this notice, remind case reviewers of the importance of the use of MPRs.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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 MPR training, guidance, auditing, refresher training and shared learning address MPR use in CT reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Medica routinely trains reporters in the use of the Radiology image viewing system (Medica Insignia PACS system) including the use of Multiplanar Reformatting (MPR) for the interpretation and reporting of all cross-sectional imaging (CT and some MRI). MPR is a term used to describe the type of 3D reconstruction that would be used in the case of the deceased.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Medica-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

    Include contact with external partners before investigation as part of the investigation process.

    Stated by Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 May 2021.
  2. 2

    Operate a dedicated cardiovascular surgery clinic for complex patients, providing joint senior vascular and cardiac surgical review and imaging-surveillance referrals where necessary.

    Stated by Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 May 2021.

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

Include contact with external partners before investigation as part of the investigation process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the inquest, evidence was heard that the Trust was waiting for a response from Medica for them to confirm that their scans are reported using 3D reconstruction. However, this has been investigated further and only the individual clinician had been contacted and not the leadership/executive team at Medica. We therefore wish to apologise for the confusion in relation to the Trusts contact with Medica. As a learning point from this, the Trust has now included contact with external partners prior to investigation as part of the investigation process.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Liverpool-Heart-and-Chest-Hospital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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 a dedicated cardiovascular surgery clinic for complex patients, providing joint senior vascular and cardiac surgical review and imaging-surveillance referrals where necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the Trust’s investigation into this matter, the Trust set up a new clinic which started on the 1st March 2021 called the Liverpool Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic, into which complex patients such as Mrs Mellor will be seen. This will ensure a joined-up approach from senior consultant review by vascular and cardiac surgeons and, where necessary, refer back to LUHFT for imaging surveillance.”

Source location

2021-0153-Response-from-Liverpool-Heart-and-Chest-Hospital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026