PFD report

Peter SUDLOW · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Jan 2020•Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

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
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised6

  1. Failure to refer patients to the Tissue Viability Nurse at indicated pressure-ulcer risk or severity points
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of pressure ulcersPart of recurring concern: Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services
  2. Lack of guidance on Tissue Viability Nurse referrals for patients with paraplegia or neurological deficit
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of pressure ulcersPart of recurring concern: Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services
  3. Lack of clear guidance on when and in what circumstances to refer patients to the Tissue Viability Nurse
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of pressure ulcersPart of recurring concern: Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 refer patients to the Tissue Viability Nurse at indicated pressure-ulcer risk or severity points

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the period of time the deceased spent in hospital between 23/1/19 and 23/2/19 there was no referral to the Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) at any time. (2) There was no referral to the TVN when the sore was categorised as a grade 2. (3) There was no referral to the TVN when the Waterlow score of the deceased increased to 17. (4) There was no referral to the TVN when the deceased was readmitted to hospital on 16/3/19 and the pressure sore determined to be Grade 4 until 22/3/19. (5) There was no clear guidance as to when and in what circumstances a referral to the TVN should be made. (6) The deceased presented with additional risks as determined by the Waterlow score with paraplegia and there was no clear guidance as to when a TVN referral should be made for those patients with additional risks such as paraplegia or neurological deficit for the purpose of seeking advice as to the prevention of pressure sores. (7) There was no clear guidance as to the involvement of the TVN in developing a plan to prevent pressure sores in those patients presenting with additional risks such as paraplegia or a neurological deficit. (8) There was no clear guidance as to the relationship between the determination of the Waterlow score and referral to the TVN to assist nursing staff. (9) The new Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment 2 week booklet (PUPT) makes no reference to a TVN referral until a pressure ulcer has reached Category or Grade 3. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers; Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services.

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

Lack of guidance on Tissue Viability Nurse referrals for patients with paraplegia or neurological deficit

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the period of time the deceased spent in hospital between 23/1/19 and 23/2/19 there was no referral to the Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) at any time. (2) There was no referral to the TVN when the sore was categorised as a grade 2. (3) There was no referral to the TVN when the Waterlow score of the deceased increased to 17. (4) There was no referral to the TVN when the deceased was readmitted to hospital on 16/3/19 and the pressure sore determined to be Grade 4 until 22/3/19. (5) There was no clear guidance as to when and in what circumstances a referral to the TVN should be made. (6) The deceased presented with additional risks as determined by the Waterlow score with paraplegia and there was no clear guidance as to when a TVN referral should be made for those patients with additional risks such as paraplegia or neurological deficit for the purpose of seeking advice as to the prevention of pressure sores. (7) There was no clear guidance as to the involvement of the TVN in developing a plan to prevent pressure sores in those patients presenting with additional risks such as paraplegia or a neurological deficit. (8) There was no clear guidance as to the relationship between the determination of the Waterlow score and referral to the TVN to assist nursing staff. (9) The new Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment 2 week booklet (PUPT) makes no reference to a TVN referral until a pressure ulcer has reached Category or Grade 3. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers; Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services.

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

Lack of clear guidance on when and in what circumstances to refer patients to the Tissue Viability Nurse

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the period of time the deceased spent in hospital between 23/1/19 and 23/2/19 there was no referral to the Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) at any time. (2) There was no referral to the TVN when the sore was categorised as a grade 2. (3) There was no referral to the TVN when the Waterlow score of the deceased increased to 17. (4) There was no referral to the TVN when the deceased was readmitted to hospital on 16/3/19 and the pressure sore determined to be Grade 4 until 22/3/19. (5) There was no clear guidance as to when and in what circumstances a referral to the TVN should be made. (6) The deceased presented with additional risks as determined by the Waterlow score with paraplegia and there was no clear guidance as to when a TVN referral should be made for those patients with additional risks such as paraplegia or neurological deficit for the purpose of seeking advice as to the prevention of pressure sores. (7) There was no clear guidance as to the involvement of the TVN in developing a plan to prevent pressure sores in those patients presenting with additional risks such as paraplegia or a neurological deficit. (8) There was no clear guidance as to the relationship between the determination of the Waterlow score and referral to the TVN to assist nursing staff. (9) The new Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment 2 week booklet (PUPT) makes no reference to a TVN referral until a pressure ulcer has reached Category or Grade 3. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers; Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services.

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

Lack of guidance linking Waterlow score determination to Tissue Viability Nurse referral

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the period of time the deceased spent in hospital between 23/1/19 and 23/2/19 there was no referral to the Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) at any time. (2) There was no referral to the TVN when the sore was categorised as a grade 2. (3) There was no referral to the TVN when the Waterlow score of the deceased increased to 17. (4) There was no referral to the TVN when the deceased was readmitted to hospital on 16/3/19 and the pressure sore determined to be Grade 4 until 22/3/19. (5) There was no clear guidance as to when and in what circumstances a referral to the TVN should be made. (6) The deceased presented with additional risks as determined by the Waterlow score with paraplegia and there was no clear guidance as to when a TVN referral should be made for those patients with additional risks such as paraplegia or neurological deficit for the purpose of seeking advice as to the prevention of pressure sores. (7) There was no clear guidance as to the involvement of the TVN in developing a plan to prevent pressure sores in those patients presenting with additional risks such as paraplegia or a neurological deficit. (8) There was no clear guidance as to the relationship between the determination of the Waterlow score and referral to the TVN to assist nursing staff. (9) The new Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment 2 week booklet (PUPT) makes no reference to a TVN referral until a pressure ulcer has reached Category or Grade 3. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers; Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services.

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

Lack of guidance on Tissue Viability Nurse involvement in pressure-sore prevention plans for patients with additional risks

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the period of time the deceased spent in hospital between 23/1/19 and 23/2/19 there was no referral to the Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) at any time. (2) There was no referral to the TVN when the sore was categorised as a grade 2. (3) There was no referral to the TVN when the Waterlow score of the deceased increased to 17. (4) There was no referral to the TVN when the deceased was readmitted to hospital on 16/3/19 and the pressure sore determined to be Grade 4 until 22/3/19. (5) There was no clear guidance as to when and in what circumstances a referral to the TVN should be made. (6) The deceased presented with additional risks as determined by the Waterlow score with paraplegia and there was no clear guidance as to when a TVN referral should be made for those patients with additional risks such as paraplegia or neurological deficit for the purpose of seeking advice as to the prevention of pressure sores. (7) There was no clear guidance as to the involvement of the TVN in developing a plan to prevent pressure sores in those patients presenting with additional risks such as paraplegia or a neurological deficit. (8) There was no clear guidance as to the relationship between the determination of the Waterlow score and referral to the TVN to assist nursing staff. (9) The new Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment 2 week booklet (PUPT) makes no reference to a TVN referral until a pressure ulcer has reached Category or Grade 3. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers.

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 Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment booklet to reference Tissue Viability Nurse referral before Category or Grade 3 pressure ulcers

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the period of time the deceased spent in hospital between 23/1/19 and 23/2/19 there was no referral to the Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) at any time. (2) There was no referral to the TVN when the sore was categorised as a grade 2. (3) There was no referral to the TVN when the Waterlow score of the deceased increased to 17. (4) There was no referral to the TVN when the deceased was readmitted to hospital on 16/3/19 and the pressure sore determined to be Grade 4 until 22/3/19. (5) There was no clear guidance as to when and in what circumstances a referral to the TVN should be made. (6) The deceased presented with additional risks as determined by the Waterlow score with paraplegia and there was no clear guidance as to when a TVN referral should be made for those patients with additional risks such as paraplegia or neurological deficit for the purpose of seeking advice as to the prevention of pressure sores. (7) There was no clear guidance as to the involvement of the TVN in developing a plan to prevent pressure sores in those patients presenting with additional risks such as paraplegia or a neurological deficit. (8) There was no clear guidance as to the relationship between the determination of the Waterlow score and referral to the TVN to assist nursing staff. (9) The new Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment 2 week booklet (PUPT) makes no reference to a TVN referral until a pressure ulcer has reached Category or Grade 3. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers; Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.