PFD report

Mr Robert Dymond · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jul 2017•Coventry

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
3

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 make the operating Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Anaesthetist aware of relevant DVT investigations and treatment
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processes
  2. Failure to include relevant DVT investigations and treatment in the second pre-operative assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable pre-operative assessment arrangements delaying or compromising surgery
  3. Failure of the DVT investigation protocol to provide repeat proximal leg vein ultrasound scanning after a positive D-dimer test and negative proximal leg ultrasound scan
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably diagnose and refer suspected DVTPart of recurring concern: Unreliable DVT diagnosis and management
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

    Undertake routine extended whole-leg scans covering veins below the knee to the calf trifurcation.

    Stated by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 December 2017.
  2. Action

    Contact high-risk patients with raised D-dimers after 5–7 days and arrange repeat scanning when symptoms have not settled.

    Stated by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 December 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Routine repeat scans are unnecessary because whole-leg scans are routinely performed and follow-up scans are arranged when symptoms fail to settle.

    Stated by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire 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

Failure to make the operating Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Anaesthetist aware of relevant DVT investigations and treatment

Wider context from the report

“(2) Neither the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon nor the Anaesthetist performing the operation on 9 March 2017 had been made aware of the DVT investigations/treatment in November 2016; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical handover 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

Failure to include relevant DVT investigations and treatment in the second pre-operative assessment

Wider context from the report

“(3) The DVT investigations/treatment in November 2016 did not appear to feature in the second pre-operative assessment carried out on 12 January 2017. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable pre-operative assessment arrangements delaying or compromising surgery.

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 of the DVT investigation protocol to provide repeat proximal leg vein ultrasound scanning after a positive D-dimer test and negative proximal leg ultrasound scan

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following referral to the UHCW DVT Clinic by his GP on 22 November 2016 with a suspected DVT, Mr Dymond, having a Wells score of 2, was assessed as being ‘likely’ to be suffering from a DVT – the investigations included a D-Dimer blood result of 0.97 – and he was discharged home with instructions to self-administer therapeutic LMWH (Clexane) doses at home twice daily in his stomach pending an ultrasound scan booked for 25 November 2016. The scan performed on 25 November 2016 apparently revealed no evidence of a DVT and he was discharged back to the care of his GP. Although the clinical management appeared to conform with the UHCW protocol in place at the time, this protocol did not appear to conform with NICE Guideline 144 (specifically section 1.1.3) which (since 2012) advises a repeat proximal leg vein ultrasound scan 6-8 days later for all patients with a positive D-dimer test and a negative proximal leg ultrasound scan; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably diagnose and refer suspected DVT; Unreliable DVT diagnosis and management.

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

Undertake routine extended whole-leg scans covering veins below the knee to the calf trifurcation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The reason that this practice is not adopted by the Trust is because at UHCW, we undertake a more extended scan as a routine which shows the leg veins below the knee to the trifurcation in the calf. This is discussed in NICE guideline 144 section 4.1 which states that whole leg scans do not routinely need a repeat scan. Therefore we believe that the Trust’s pathway goes beyond the minimum requirements and accordingly we exclude very low numbers of venous thromboembolism following discharge from the DVT service.”

Source location

2017-0333-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Coventry-and-Warwickshire-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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

Contact high-risk patients with raised D-dimers after 5–7 days and arrange repeat scanning when symptoms have not settled.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further, the Trust’s standard practice in patients with a high risk Wells score and raised D-Dimers is to contact the patient 5-7 days later and arrange a repeat scan if the symptoms are not settling. Only a small proportion of patients who present with isolated distal DVTs extend to the proximal veins. Those that do not extend, rarely lead to clinically significant emboli as recognised by the British Society of Haematology national guidelines, a copy of which is attached by way of information.”

Source location

2017-0333-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Coventry-and-Warwickshire-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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

Routine repeat scans are unnecessary because whole-leg scans are routinely performed and follow-up scans are arranged when symptoms fail to settle.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The reason that this practice is not adopted by the Trust is because at UHCW, we undertake a more extended scan as a routine which shows the leg veins below the knee to the trifurcation in the calf. This is discussed in NICE guideline 144 section 4.1 which states that whole leg scans do not routinely need a repeat scan. Therefore we believe that the Trust’s pathway goes beyond the minimum requirements and accordingly we exclude very low numbers of venous thromboembolism following discharge from the DVT service.”

Source location

2017-0333-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Coventry-and-Warwickshire-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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 available investigations did not identify DVT, so it would not have affected pre-operative assessment or the operating team’s decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The haematologists do consider it unlikely that the patient did have a proximal DVT as he was untreated and would not appear to have had any further problems up until his surgery 4 months later. As no DVT was identified by the investigations it would not have been relevant to the pre-operative assessment and would not have been relevant to the operating team.”

Source location

2017-0333-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Coventry-and-Warwickshire-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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.1

  1. 1

    Use a very high-sensitivity D-dimer testing kit when assessing suspected DVT.

    Stated by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 December 2017.

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

  1. 1

    The high-sensitivity D-dimer test permits moderate-risk patients to follow the low-probability pathway under relevant guidance.

    Stated by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS TrustExisting 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

Use a very high-sensitivity D-dimer testing kit when assessing suspected DVT.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is also of note that the Trust use a very high sensitivity D - Dimer kit and the British Society of Haematologists guidance states that patients with a moderate risk Wells score (1-2) can follow the path of low probability if such a test is used.”

Source location

2017-0333-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Coventry-and-Warwickshire-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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 high-sensitivity D-dimer test permits moderate-risk patients to follow the low-probability pathway under relevant guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is also of note that the Trust use a very high sensitivity D - Dimer kit and the British Society of Haematologists guidance states that patients with a moderate risk Wells score (1-2) can follow the path of low probability if such a test is used.”

Source location

2017-0333-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Coventry-and-Warwickshire-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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