PFD report

Beryl Dandridge · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Jun 2024•Oxfordshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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. Inconsistent and inappropriate decision-making about preoperative echocardiograms and delaying periprosthetic surgery
  2. Failure to include relevant anaesthetic subject expertise in Structured Mortality Reviews
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable morbidity and mortality review processes
  3. Unclear responsibility for expediting required echocardiograms
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of echocardiography services to provide timely diagnostic assessment and follow-up
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.4

  1. Action

    Ensure Mortality Review Groups include appropriate subject-matter expertise and convene wider Learning MDT meetings when needed.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 July 2026.
  2. Action

    Clarify and agree the urgent echocardiogram process, including criteria, responsibilities, timescales, multidisciplinary discussion and escalation.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2026.
  3. Action

    Strengthen Structured Mortality Review training, guidance and reporting templates to capture relevant clinicians’ views on concerns about poor care.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2026.

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

  1. Position

    An existing Trust process governs urgent echocardiogram requests, including responsibility, timescales, multidisciplinary discussion and escalation.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation 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

Inconsistent and inappropriate decision-making about preoperative echocardiograms and delaying periprosthetic surgery

Wider context from the report

“1. As part of the evidence, it became clear there were conflicting views between clinicians regarding the need for an echocardiogram for vulnerable patients pending periprosthetic surgery and the circumstances when surgery might be appropriately delayed pending such a scan. Evidence was heard that the Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) guidelines regarding echocardiograms (which apply to higher risk surgery more generally) were incorrectly applied to the circumstances of Mrs Dandridge’s periprosthetic fracture. ”

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 include relevant anaesthetic subject expertise in Structured Mortality Reviews

Wider context from the report

“3. The Structured Mortality Review was critical of the decision to require an echocardiogram pending surgery. Such a review is designed to provide learning for the Trust to be applied in future cases. The evidence at the Inquest was that the Review had no input from an anaesthetist who may have articulated the medical justification for such an echocardiogram in this instance. Concerns were raised in evidence that without the relevant subject expertise at such Reviews any future learning from a Structured Mortality Review could be inaccurate or misconceived. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable morbidity and mortality review processes.

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

Unclear responsibility for expediting required echocardiograms

Wider context from the report

“2. Having determined that an echocardiogram was required before surgery could take place, it was unclear which clinicians was responsible for expediting such a scan in circumstances where the evidence indicated that delays in surgery is associated with poorer outcomes for vulnerable patients. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of echocardiography services to provide timely diagnostic assessment and follow-up.

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

Ensure Mortality Review Groups include appropriate subject-matter expertise and convene wider Learning MDT meetings when needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The OUH Mortality Review Process includes dedicated training for senior clinicians in conducting Structured Mortality Reviews (SMR). SMRs are presented to the Trust Mortality Review Group which is composed of a range of consultants. The SMR discussion for this case did involve an anaesthetist when it was presented at MRG. We have strengthened the SMR training, guidance and report template to include a requirement to discuss any concerns about poor clinical care raised in the SMR with the appropriate clinician involved and to include their views within the SMR as necessary. The Mortality Review Group will ensure that subject matter expertise is included in all cases, especially where there are concerns about the quality of care provided and if necessary a wider Learning MDT meeting with a range of subject matter experts will be convened to explore any differences of opinion.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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

Clarify and agree the urgent echocardiogram process, including criteria, responsibilities, timescales, multidisciplinary discussion and escalation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We already have a process for requesting urgent echocardiograms within the Trust. This process was reviewed and clarified at the Learning Multi-disciplinary Team meeting. This clarification included the rationale and criteria for requesting the urgent echocardiogram, who is responsible for making the request, acceptable timescales, the need for early multidisciplinary discussion, and an escalation process for when any delay through the normal route would be unacceptable. This process has been agreed with the Consultant Cardiology team and the escalation will go through the on call Consultant Cardiologist. Some members of the Orthogeriatrics team will also undergo training in focused bedside echocardiography to provide further capacity for urgent echocardiograms.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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

Strengthen Structured Mortality Review training, guidance and reporting templates to capture relevant clinicians’ views on concerns about poor care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The OUH Mortality Review Process includes dedicated training for senior clinicians in conducting Structured Mortality Reviews (SMR). SMRs are presented to the Trust Mortality Review Group which is composed of a range of consultants. The SMR discussion for this case did involve an anaesthetist when it was presented at MRG. We have strengthened the SMR training, guidance and report template to include a requirement to discuss any concerns about poor clinical care raised in the SMR with the appropriate clinician involved and to include their views within the SMR as necessary. The Mortality Review Group will ensure that subject matter expertise is included in all cases, especially where there are concerns about the quality of care provided and if necessary a wider Learning MDT meeting with a range of subject matter experts will be convened to explore any differences of opinion.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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

Adopt individualized risk assessment for patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) guidelines on the management of hip fractures (2020) are not explicitly for the type of fracture that Mrs Dandridge experienced (distal peri-prosthetic femur fracture). However they are used as a guide for all fragility femoral fractures by the Orthogeriatrician Team. We convened a group of experts at the Learning Multi-disciplinary Team meeting including the Orthogeriatrician team and the Anaesthetist involved in this case and have agreed that whilst some of the same principles of the AAGBI guidelines apply to patients with periprosthetic fractures as to other femoral fragility fractures, these cases present a more complex risk / benefit analysis due to the increased length of operation and complexity of the surgery and therefore each patient will require an individualised risk assessment.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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

An existing Trust process governs urgent echocardiogram requests, including responsibility, timescales, multidisciplinary discussion and escalation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We already have a process for requesting urgent echocardiograms within the Trust. This process was reviewed and clarified at the Learning Multi-disciplinary Team meeting. This clarification included the rationale and criteria for requesting the urgent echocardiogram, who is responsible for making the request, acceptable timescales, the need for early multidisciplinary discussion, and an escalation process for when any delay through the normal route would be unacceptable. This process has been agreed with the Consultant Cardiology team and the escalation will go through the on call Consultant Cardiologist. Some members of the Orthogeriatrics team will also undergo training in focused bedside echocardiography to provide further capacity for urgent echocardiograms.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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

AAGBI hip-fracture guidelines are not explicitly applicable to periprosthetic femur fractures, which require individualized risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) guidelines on the management of hip fractures (2020) are not explicitly for the type of fracture that Mrs Dandridge experienced (distal peri-prosthetic femur fracture). However they are used as a guide for all fragility femoral fractures by the Orthogeriatrician Team. We convened a group of experts at the Learning Multi-disciplinary Team meeting including the Orthogeriatrician team and the Anaesthetist involved in this case and have agreed that whilst some of the same principles of the AAGBI guidelines apply to patients with periprosthetic fractures as to other femoral fragility fractures, these cases present a more complex risk / benefit analysis due to the increased length of operation and complexity of the surgery and therefore each patient will require an individualised risk assessment.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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 Mortality Review Process already includes relevant clinical expertise through trained clinicians, consultant review and subject-matter input where necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The OUH Mortality Review Process includes dedicated training for senior clinicians in conducting Structured Mortality Reviews (SMR). SMRs are presented to the Trust Mortality Review Group which is composed of a range of consultants. The SMR discussion for this case did involve an anaesthetist when it was presented at MRG. We have strengthened the SMR training, guidance and report template to include a requirement to discuss any concerns about poor clinical care raised in the SMR with the appropriate clinician involved and to include their views within the SMR as necessary. The Mortality Review Group will ensure that subject matter expertise is included in all cases, especially where there are concerns about the quality of care provided and if necessary a wider Learning MDT meeting with a range of subject matter experts will be convened to explore any differences of opinion.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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

    Train some Orthogeriatrics team members in focused bedside echocardiography to increase urgent echocardiogram capacity.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 July 2026.
  2. 2

    Present learning from the case at Trust safety, mortality review and relevant clinical governance meetings.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 July 2026.

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 some Orthogeriatrics team members in focused bedside echocardiography to increase urgent echocardiogram capacity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We already have a process for requesting urgent echocardiograms within the Trust. This process was reviewed and clarified at the Learning Multi-disciplinary Team meeting. This clarification included the rationale and criteria for requesting the urgent echocardiogram, who is responsible for making the request, acceptable timescales, the need for early multidisciplinary discussion, and an escalation process for when any delay through the normal route would be unacceptable. This process has been agreed with the Consultant Cardiology team and the escalation will go through the on call Consultant Cardiologist. Some members of the Orthogeriatrics team will also undergo training in focused bedside echocardiography to provide further capacity for urgent echocardiograms.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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

Present learning from the case at Trust safety, mortality review and relevant clinical governance meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The learning from this case will be presented at the Trust Safety Learning and Improvement Conversation (SLIC) meeting, the Trust Mortality Review Group, and the Clinical Governance meetings for Anaesthetics, Trauma and Orthogeriatrics.”

Source location

Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2026

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