PFD report

Derek Edward Hare · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Jan 2016•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 provide timely hospital appointments for reported abdominal problems
  2. Failure to retain patients in hospital when abdominal pain requires continued urgent assessment
  3. Failure to maintain a single coherent set of clinical notes
    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.1

  1. Action

    Reiterate and reinforce the record-keeping policy requiring staff to use one current set of records during each admission, through clinical leads and governance meetings.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 January 2016.

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 provide timely hospital appointments for reported abdominal problems

Wider context from the report

“2. The deceased incessantly asked for appointments at the hospital because he knew that his abdomen was “not right”, yet he was constantly refused/denied such an appointment. This meant that it is possible that the problem which he had was diagnosed much later than might have been the case, and the outcome might have been different. ”

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 retain patients in hospital when abdominal pain requires continued urgent assessment

Wider context from the report

“3. On the 5th May 2015 he was admitted via emergency ambulance to TGH with abdominal pains. On the 6th May it was determined that he did not need an emergency colonoscopy and the “urgency was not there”. He was sent home. He attended on the 19th June and had to undergo a laparotomy when the problem of the broken anastomosis was discovered and he died on the twelfth August. It was agreed by one of the consultant surgeons giving evidence to me that it would have benefited his care to have kept him in hospital on the 6th May. ”

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 maintain a single coherent set of clinical notes

Wider context from the report

“1. It would appear that throughout his various admissions to the hospital, two completely separate sets of “notes” were open and being used. Thus when the doctor tried to refer to the notes in court he could not do so and had to seek a short adjournment to find the relevant entry. If this were the case when the patient was in the hospital, it is hardly surprising that errors were made and staff members were not clear as to what would comprise the optimum care for this patient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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

Reiterate and reinforce the record-keeping policy requiring staff to use one current set of records during each admission, through clinical leads and governance meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In respect of your concerns regarding the case notes I recognise that staff entries into the records should be in one set of records which should be the current ones in use during the patient’s admission. This is the Trust’s standard and expectation and has been reiterated to the Consultant Clinical Leads, Lead Clinicians and Senior Nurses in the Clinical Divisions for discussion to all staff and for discussion at their Clinical Governance and team meetings. As you have highlighted where it is necessary to provide two sets of notes for reference to the previous history and continuity of care there is a risk that medical staff may enter their notes in the older set of notes. This reiteration and reinforcement of the record keeping policy will minimise this.”

Source location

D-hare-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 20 January 2016

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