PFD report

John Andrew Mellor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Feb 2019•Manchester North

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
4

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
19

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 establish shared care arrangements or identify an organisation for blood sampling for drug monitoring
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable medication-specific blood-level monitoringPart of recurring concern: Unsafe coordination of shared care
  2. Failure to ensure required blood tests for individuals under specialist secondary care for renal failure
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure reliable renal monitoring for patients with renal diseasePart of recurring concern: Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests
  3. Failure to communicate referral responses, referral updates and community test requests directly to primary care
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
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.12

  1. Action

    Identify patients receiving or potentially requiring shared-care ESA pathways and write to GP practices to promote robust monitoring.

    Stated by NHS Oldham CCGStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  2. Action

    Explore a Greater Manchester commissioned shared-care protocol for ESA monitoring through CCGs and the Medicines Management Group.

    Stated by Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  3. Action

    Notify the CCG that the Practice was asked to monitor a red-status medication and report the associated significant event.

    Stated by St Chads Medical PracticeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2019.

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

  1. Position

    The Practice should not accept responsibility for monitoring EPO; the CCG will liaise directly with the Trust and medicines management.

    Stated by St Chads Medical PracticeRedirects 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 establish shared care arrangements or identify an organisation for blood sampling for drug monitoring

Wider context from the report

“That there appears to have been a systematic failure to ensure that blood tests are conducted, where required, for individuals under specialist, secondary care for renal failure. Individual patients, who may not be local to the specialist centre, will inevitably fail to have the appropriate assessments, care and treatment, in the absence of a clear line of responsibility. The failure to establish a shared care arrangement, or at least to ensure that an organisation was identified in order to undertake blood sampling for drug monitoring, is insecure and unsafe. It is also concerning that responses or updates to referrals, as well as requests for tests in the community, have not been communicated to primary care directly, with the sole reliance on a patient to pass vital documentation on to his primary healthcare provider. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable medication-specific blood-level monitoring; Unsafe coordination of shared care.

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 ensure required blood tests for individuals under specialist secondary care for renal failure

Wider context from the report

“That there appears to have been a systematic failure to ensure that blood tests are conducted, where required, for individuals under specialist, secondary care for renal failure. Individual patients, who may not be local to the specialist centre, will inevitably fail to have the appropriate assessments, care and treatment, in the absence of a clear line of responsibility. The failure to establish a shared care arrangement, or at least to ensure that an organisation was identified in order to undertake blood sampling for drug monitoring, is insecure and unsafe. It is also concerning that responses or updates to referrals, as well as requests for tests in the community, have not been communicated to primary care directly, with the sole reliance on a patient to pass vital documentation on to his primary healthcare provider. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure reliable renal monitoring for patients with renal disease; Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests.

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 communicate referral responses, referral updates and community test requests directly to primary care

Wider context from the report

“That there appears to have been a systematic failure to ensure that blood tests are conducted, where required, for individuals under specialist, secondary care for renal failure. Individual patients, who may not be local to the specialist centre, will inevitably fail to have the appropriate assessments, care and treatment, in the absence of a clear line of responsibility. The failure to establish a shared care arrangement, or at least to ensure that an organisation was identified in order to undertake blood sampling for drug monitoring, is insecure and unsafe. It is also concerning that responses or updates to referrals, as well as requests for tests in the community, have not been communicated to primary care directly, with the sole reliance on a patient to pass vital documentation on to his primary healthcare provider. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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

Identify patients receiving or potentially requiring shared-care ESA pathways and write to GP practices to promote robust monitoring.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Learning will be shared across the Northern Care Alliance (NCA) and communicated to Central Manchester Foundation Trust to ensure that shared care protocols are reviewed and that others can learn from the communication errors that occurred for Mr Mellor. Oldham CCG have been working”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 6 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Explore a Greater Manchester commissioned shared-care protocol for ESA monitoring through CCGs and the Medicines Management Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As above, following discussions with the CCG, it is recognised that this is a Greater Manchester issue. We are exploring via the CCGs and the Greater Manchester Medicines Management Group the possibility of a Greater Manchester commissioned shared care protocol for monitoring of ESAs.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Notify the CCG that the Practice was asked to monitor a red-status medication and report the associated significant event.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Practice should have alerted the CCG to the fact that they were being asked to arrange monitoring of a red status medication so that the CCG could liaise with secondary care to arrange a Medication Management. We wrote to the CCG on 11 February 2019 to notify them of this significant event and the upcoming Coroner’s Inquest. Please find a copy of that letter enclosed with this response.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 12 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Assume responsibility for taking bloods until the GP responds, ensuring clinically necessary ESA treatment can begin.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Until SRFT receives a response from the GP, we assume responsibility for taking bloods to ensure that patients start ESA treatment when clinically necessary. A Standard Operating Policy has been developed which describes the above process and the steps taken when a negative response is received, or when a response is outstanding. A copy of the Standard Operating Policy is attached.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Establish an operating procedure requiring direct GP communication and a provider response before confirming monitoring-dependent treatment plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The actions being led by the Renal Team at Salford Royal Foundation Trust have been put in place a standard operating procedure to communicate directly with GP’s and ensure a response to any request for blood monitoring or any other service carried out locally. This will require a response from the local GP or provider before the treatment plan is confirmed. The Trust have confirmed that all correspondence with the patient will be copied to the GP. On a longer term implementation is the development of a shared care model – this has been described in a business case to Greater Manchester Medicines Management Group which will then go out to local commissioners.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 6 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Develop and implement a standard operating policy covering ESA blood-monitoring arrangements, outstanding responses, and negative responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Until SRFT receives a response from the GP, we assume responsibility for taking bloods to ensure that patients start ESA treatment when clinically necessary. A Standard Operating Policy has been developed which describes the above process and the steps taken when a negative response is received, or when a response is outstanding. A copy of the Standard Operating Policy is attached.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Ask GPs before ESA treatment whether they can monitor bloods, record responses electronically, agree monitoring plans, and follow up non-responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to commencement of treatment, a letter is now sent to the patient’s GP when the Renal Consultant is considering ESA treatment to make the GP aware of this and to ask if they are able to monitor the patient’s bloods. A return slip is included so that this can be completed and administered efficiently. When SRFT are aware of the GP’s position in respect of the patient’s bloods, an appropriate blood monitoring plan is agreed with the patient at the time of the prescription of ESA. This method enhances the informed consent process for ESA treatment as patients will have an understanding of the full implications of the monitoring required. SRFT’s Electronic Patient Record System (“EPR”) has been updated with a section confirming when a GP has responded in respect of monitoring. If no response is obtained from primary care, this is followed up by the renal clinical team.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Modify patient letters to explain blood-test arrangements clearly and provide an SRFT contact for monitoring difficulties.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Immediate actions to assure patient safety The wording of letters to patients has been modified to ensure the options available to them for arranging blood tests is very clear and a point of contact at SRFT is provided if the patient is having any difficulty. Patients may attend the renal clinics at Salford, Wigan, Bolton and Oldham for pre-arranged blood tests.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Allocate prescriber job-plan time for ESA monitoring and prescribing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to track all patients receiving ESAs, SRFT’s EPR system has been updated to show when patients’ blood results are due, and those that are missing and require follow up. Prescribers have allocated time in their job plans for ESA monitoring and prescribing. The new EPR system always shows the most recent haemoglobin results for the patient.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Write to existing ESA patients to identify difficulties accessing monitoring and manage identified difficulties under the agreed policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These improvements will provide assurance not only in respect of new patients who start ESA treatment, but also current patients. All patients currently receiving ESA treatment will be written to by the renal admin team by the end of May 2019 to establish whether they have experienced any difficulties in accessing appropriate monitoring. Patients experiencing difficulties will be managed in accordance with the agreed SOP.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Describe the shared-care model in a business case for consideration by the Greater Manchester Medicines Management Group and local commissioners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The actions being led by the Renal Team at Salford Royal Foundation Trust have been put in place a standard operating procedure to communicate directly with GP’s and ensure a response to any request for blood monitoring or any other service carried out locally. This will require a response from the local GP or provider before the treatment plan is confirmed. The Trust have confirmed that all correspondence with the patient will be copied to the GP. On a longer term implementation is the development of a shared care model – this has been described in a business case to Greater Manchester Medicines Management Group which will then go out to local commissioners.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 6 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Update the electronic record to track ESA blood results due, missing results requiring follow-up, and the latest haemoglobin results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to track all patients receiving ESAs, SRFT’s EPR system has been updated to show when patients’ blood results are due, and those that are missing and require follow up. Prescribers have allocated time in their job plans for ESA monitoring and prescribing. The new EPR system always shows the most recent haemoglobin results for the patient.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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 Practice should not accept responsibility for monitoring EPO; the CCG will liaise directly with the Trust and medicines management.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During a telephone call with ████████ at the CCG on 29 March 2019, the Practice was informed that we should not agree to the monitoring of red category medications and should notify the CCG urgently if asked to do so. The CCG are liaising directly with the Trust and also with Medications Management regarding this issue. At the request of the Trust we have not written to the Trust and the CCG are liaising with them directly in relation to the issues identified by the Practice and by the CCG.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 13 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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 community nursing service was commissioned to provide phlebotomy only for housebound patients, and this patient was not housebound.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Oldham Adult Community Nursing service provides care for patients who are housebound, either permanently or temporarily, requiring treatment in their own home. There is also a Treatment Room service based in clinics across the borough for those patients’ not housebound but requiring District Nursing interventions. The service is commissioned to deliver a phlebotomy service to housebound patients only.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 9 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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 SPoA and District Nursing service followed due process and acted appropriately on the referral based on the information available.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Both parties reviewed the information and timelines of events in regard to this referral to determine what collectively we would do differently if similar circumstances arose. It was determined that based on the information available the SPoA and District Nurses followed due process and acted accordingly. It was acknowledged at that time the practice did not have capacity to facilitate the full blood count although they were able to perform the blood pressure monitoring.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 10 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

    Feed investigation findings back to Practice staff and update the CCG on those findings.

    Stated by St Chads Medical PracticeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  2. 2

    Develop and disseminate a lessons-learned poster across community services.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  3. 3

    Share incident learning with the Renal Patient Safety Committee and relevant organisations.

    Stated by St Chads Medical PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  4. 4

    Meet with SPoA staff to ensure patients are informed when referrals are forwarded and can obtain escalation support if problems arise.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  5. 5

    Train Practice staff on identified escalation, administrative, and procedural requirements, reinforcing training through staff communications.

    Stated by St Chads Medical PracticeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  6. 6

    Copy GPs into all patient correspondence, including notices that blood tests are due.

    Stated by St Chads Medical PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  7. 7

    Schedule reviews and audits to assess whether Practice changes are effective and identify continuing concerns.

    Stated by St Chads Medical PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 June 2019.

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

  1. 1

    No further safeguarding training investigation was undertaken because recent inspection had confirmed that staff training and safeguarding procedures were up to date.

    Stated by St Chads Medical PracticeExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Feed investigation findings back to Practice staff and update the CCG on those findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Practice has updated the CCG with the findings from these investigations and the findings have been fed back to staff at the Practice. As mentioned above the CCG have requested that the Practice ████████”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 13 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Develop and disseminate a lessons-learned poster across community services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A ‘lessons learned’ poster is being developed to share across community services in support of this.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 10 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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 incident learning with the Renal Patient Safety Committee and relevant organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“SRFT has looked at both immediate actions and long-term solutions to address the concerns raised and the lessons that have been learned will be shared with the Renal Patient Safety Committee which is a joint venture with the British Renal Society. The Renal Patient Safety Committee works closely with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and NHS Improvement and aims to minimise avoidable harm to patients with kidney disease.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Meet with SPoA staff to ensure patients are informed when referrals are forwarded and can obtain escalation support if problems arise.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this incident and to ensure the learning is communicated, the Cluster Lead is meeting with SPoA staff to ensure that when referrals are forwarded to another provider that the patient is informed of the reason for this. Patients will also be advised to contact SPoA should any issues arise and SPoA staff will then escalate to cluster teams to resolve.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 10 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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 Practice staff on identified escalation, administrative, and procedural requirements, reinforcing training through staff communications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The CCG have advised the Practice that if we are asked to accept responsibility for the monitoring of patients prescribed EPO by secondary care again we should not accept that responsibility. Whilst this reinforces that it was the right decision not to agree to undertake the ongoing monitoring that the Renal Team had asked JM to arrange, the Practice were concerned that our systems for escalating the concern within and outside the Practice were not as robust as they should have been.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 13 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Copy GPs into all patient correspondence, including notices that blood tests are due.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Going forward, GPs will be copied in to all correspondence to the patient, including correspondence advising the patient that they are due to have their bloods tested.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 4 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

Schedule reviews and audits to assess whether Practice changes are effective and identify continuing concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Training has been delivered through Practice meetings. The Practice holds weekly non-clinical meetings and fortnightly clinical meetings in addition to monthly Practice meetings for the whole of the Team. This training has been reinforced with follow up emails to all staff. The Practice has also scheduled reviews and audits to ensure that the changes have been effective and to identify any ongoing patterns of concern. Please see the enclosed table.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 13 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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

No further safeguarding training investigation was undertaken because recent inspection had confirmed that staff training and safeguarding procedures were up to date.

Verbatim wording from the response

“One of the concerns raised by yourself was the potential for vulnerable patients to fall through the gaps of care between providers. The Practice has recently been inspected by the CQC (report not yet available) as part of that process the Practice has been recently reviewed staff training in Safeguarding and the Practice’s Safeguarding procedures and all staff members are up to date. We therefore did not undertake a further investigation into staff training in safeguarding but consideration of patient vulnerability was dealt with in the SEA and followed up during the clinical meeting on 18 March 2019.”

Source location

2019-0053-Responses
Page 13 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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
1/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026