PFD report

Polly Elisabeth Jane CARPENTER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Oct 2014•Exeter & Great Devon

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised6

  1. Staff lack of knowledge of current patient risk levels
  2. Failure to record risk assessments on RIO
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation of safety risk assessments
  3. Failure to maintain a permanent record of nursing tasks performed
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
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

    Retain Level 1 and 2 observation forms, allocation charts and shift planners for two years, uploading records when an observation incident occurs.

    Stated by Devon Partnership NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 October 2014.
  2. Action

    Issue guidance on the information expected in completed observation documentation.

    Stated by Devon Partnership NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 October 2014.
  3. Action

    Implement revised observation documentation with comment fields and a registered-nurse review and RiO progress-note update each shift.

    Stated by Devon Partnership NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 October 2014.

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

  1. Position

    Storing intermittent observation forms for two years, with uploading only after incidents, is considered sufficient to enable future access when needed.

    Stated by Devon Partnership NHS TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so 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

Staff lack of knowledge of current patient risk levels

Wider context from the report

“(3) While I note that Risks Assessments were dynamic and said to be performed regularly there was no written record of them appearing on the RIO and staff appeared to have very little or no knowledge of the levels of risk at the instant in time. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 risk assessments on RIO

Wider context from the report

“(3) While I note that Risks Assessments were dynamic and said to be performed regularly there was no written record of them appearing on the RIO and staff appeared to have very little or no knowledge of the levels of risk at the instant in time. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable documentation of safety risk assessments.

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 maintain a permanent record of nursing tasks performed

Wider context from the report

“(4) The decision not to formally record levels of observations and nurse allocation to do them on the RIO record remains a cause for concern. From the Evidence heard it is quite clear there can be no audit of a system which is not routinely recorded and some participants remain worryingly vague about the tasks they may/may not have performed. This does not support the view that being in hospital means that a regular robust system of care and attention is given to patients who desperately need the help for which they have been admitted. It is hoped that provision of a permanent record, would allow a culture of individual responsibility to flourish in the minds of all the nursing staff, so patients are looked after in the fullest sense of the word. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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 formally record observation levels

Wider context from the report

“(4) The decision not to formally record levels of observations and nurse allocation to do them on the RIO record remains a cause for concern. From the Evidence heard it is quite clear there can be no audit of a system which is not routinely recorded and some participants remain worryingly vague about the tasks they may/may not have performed. This does not support the view that being in hospital means that a regular robust system of care and attention is given to patients who desperately need the help for which they have been admitted. It is hoped that provision of a permanent record, would allow a culture of individual responsibility to flourish in the minds of all the nursing staff, so patients are looked after in the fullest sense of the word. ”

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 record nurse allocation for observations

Wider context from the report

“(4) The decision not to formally record levels of observations and nurse allocation to do them on the RIO record remains a cause for concern. From the Evidence heard it is quite clear there can be no audit of a system which is not routinely recorded and some participants remain worryingly vague about the tasks they may/may not have performed. This does not support the view that being in hospital means that a regular robust system of care and attention is given to patients who desperately need the help for which they have been admitted. It is hoped that provision of a permanent record, would allow a culture of individual responsibility to flourish in the minds of all the nursing staff, so patients are looked after in the fullest sense of the word. ”

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

Nebulous execution of the named nurse system

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Evidence of Named Nurse system which was in operation at the time of Polly’s death indicated its execution to be somewhat nebulous. I am encouraged by ████████ Evidence that the Trust has taken up the challenge and instituted new steps with 1:1 time and the placement of a ward board with names of nurses allocated to each patient so improving patient's access to them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable named-nurse allocation and identification.

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

Retain Level 1 and 2 observation forms, allocation charts and shift planners for two years, uploading records when an observation incident occurs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Level 1 and 2 (intermittent) observation forms (hard paper forms) are stored for two years, along with the allocation charts and the shift planners. They are only uploaded if an incident occurs during the period of observation. Therefore in the future should we need access to the observation chart records this will be able to be achieved. In the case of Polly, with the new policy in place the observation charts for the previous 24 hours would have been uploaded and all observation charts for the duration of her stay would have been stored.”

Source location

2014-0469-Response-by-Devon-Partnership-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 October 2014

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

Issue guidance on the information expected in completed observation documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Revised documentation has been developed and is being implemented which includes room on the form for comments; there are guidelines on what we would expect to see written on these forms. From this the registered nurse on every shift would review the completed forms and provide an update on RiO in the progress notes. Again guidance will be issued as to what we would expect to see written.”

Source location

2014-0469-Response-by-Devon-Partnership-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 October 2014

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

Implement revised observation documentation with comment fields and a registered-nurse review and RiO progress-note update each shift.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Revised documentation has been developed and is being implemented which includes room on the form for comments; there are guidelines on what we would expect to see written on these forms. From this the registered nurse on every shift would review the completed forms and provide an update on RiO in the progress notes. Again guidance will be issued as to what we would expect to see written.”

Source location

2014-0469-Response-by-Devon-Partnership-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 October 2014

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

Storing intermittent observation forms for two years, with uploading only after incidents, is considered sufficient to enable future access when needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Level 1 and 2 (intermittent) observation forms (hard paper forms) are stored for two years, along with the allocation charts and the shift planners. They are only uploaded if an incident occurs during the period of observation. Therefore in the future should we need access to the observation chart records this will be able to be achieved. In the case of Polly, with the new policy in place the observation charts for the previous 24 hours would have been uploaded and all observation charts for the duration of her stay would have been stored.”

Source location

2014-0469-Response-by-Devon-Partnership-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 October 2014

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

    Provide local training and supervision to support implementation of the Supportive observation and engagement policy changes.

    Stated by Devon Partnership NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 October 2014.
  2. 2

    Develop Supportive observation and engagement policy changes with nursing staff to improve safety and patient engagement.

    Stated by Devon Partnership NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 October 2014.

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

Provide local training and supervision to support implementation of the Supportive observation and engagement policy changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The changes to the Supportive observation and engagement policy have been developed with the nursing staff to make them as practical and safe as possible and to ensure that staff time is spent engaging with the patients. There is local training and supervision in place to support the implementation of these changes.”

Source location

2014-0469-Response-by-Devon-Partnership-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 October 2014

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 Supportive observation and engagement policy changes with nursing staff to improve safety and patient engagement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The changes to the Supportive observation and engagement policy have been developed with the nursing staff to make them as practical and safe as possible and to ensure that staff time is spent engaging with the patients. There is local training and supervision in place to support the implementation of these changes.”

Source location

2014-0469-Response-by-Devon-Partnership-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 October 2014

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