PFD report

Kenneth George Willard KING · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Nov 2024•Norfolk

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
14

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 raised7

  1. Reliance on subjective clinician judgment for decisions to perform physiological observations
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable assessment of when physiological observations are neededPart of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
  2. Delayed implementation of the required training programme
  3. Failure to maintain and review a complete view of a patient's presentation and deterioration across community visits
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain a shared clinical overview of patients' changing concerns
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.14

  1. Action

    Provide targeted deteriorating-patient training for podiatrists and non-registered community clinicians while investigating attendance barriers.

    Stated by East of England Community Health and Care NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 December 2024.
  2. Action

    Complete consultation and ratification of the newly developed community competency matrix.

    Stated by East of England Community Health and Care NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 December 2024.
  3. Action

    Complete place-level gap analyses of competency and training needs to improve training accessibility and availability.

    Stated by East of England Community Health and Care NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 December 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Operational pressures make consistent allocation of individual community clinicians difficult, requiring staff movement to minimise patient risk.

    Stated by East of England Community Health and Care NHS TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Reliance on subjective clinician judgment for decisions to perform physiological observations

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence was heard that there is no formal structure in place as to when or with regard to the frequency of carrying out physiological observations on patients in the community. Observations are required to be taken if the attending clinician has any concerns about the patient's wellbeing or a deterioration in their condition, or at the request of a senior clinician or GP. No specific questions are asked of the patient, such as if they are feeling unwell, have pain or localised heat, the attending practitioner relies on general conversation carried out at their attendance to help form a view as to whether observations are required to be taken. It was accepted in evidence that the decision to perform observations relies on the clinical judgment of the relevant clinician, which is a subjective decision which may be exercised incorrectly and at variance with other clinicians. Different clinicians carry out visits in the community and so have no overall view of a patient's presentation and any deterioration. Written records are available but evidence was heard that in this case, on the last visit, the record of the previous attendance was looked at and no history prior to that. Evidence was heard that Health Care Practitioners may have limited clinical training and rely on instructions and advice from trained nurses. In this case, evidence was heard that Mr King presented as feeling well but had high inflammatory markers, which may mask when observations are required to be carried out. Some patients may not be forthcoming about any symptoms unless specifically asked. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable assessment of when physiological observations are needed; 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

Delayed implementation of the required training programme

Wider context from the report

“2. Mr King died a year ago and although there is a training programme which is being devised and rolled out it is not expected to be in place for a further eighteen months. The policy to prevent bank staff applying for roles when they have not undergone the required training is not yet in place. ”

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 and review a complete view of a patient's presentation and deterioration across community visits

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence was heard that there is no formal structure in place as to when or with regard to the frequency of carrying out physiological observations on patients in the community. Observations are required to be taken if the attending clinician has any concerns about the patient's wellbeing or a deterioration in their condition, or at the request of a senior clinician or GP. No specific questions are asked of the patient, such as if they are feeling unwell, have pain or localised heat, the attending practitioner relies on general conversation carried out at their attendance to help form a view as to whether observations are required to be taken. It was accepted in evidence that the decision to perform observations relies on the clinical judgment of the relevant clinician, which is a subjective decision which may be exercised incorrectly and at variance with other clinicians. Different clinicians carry out visits in the community and so have no overall view of a patient's presentation and any deterioration. Written records are available but evidence was heard that in this case, on the last visit, the record of the previous attendance was looked at and no history prior to that. Evidence was heard that Health Care Practitioners may have limited clinical training and rely on instructions and advice from trained nurses. In this case, evidence was heard that Mr King presented as feeling well but had high inflammatory markers, which may mask when observations are required to be carried out. Some patients may not be forthcoming about any symptoms unless specifically asked. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain a shared clinical overview of patients' changing concerns.

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 a policy preventing untrained bank staff from applying for roles

Wider context from the report

“2. Mr King died a year ago and although there is a training programme which is being devised and rolled out it is not expected to be in place for a further eighteen months. The policy to prevent bank staff applying for roles when they have not undergone the required training is not yet in place. ”

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

Limited clinical training of Health Care Practitioners

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence was heard that there is no formal structure in place as to when or with regard to the frequency of carrying out physiological observations on patients in the community. Observations are required to be taken if the attending clinician has any concerns about the patient's wellbeing or a deterioration in their condition, or at the request of a senior clinician or GP. No specific questions are asked of the patient, such as if they are feeling unwell, have pain or localised heat, the attending practitioner relies on general conversation carried out at their attendance to help form a view as to whether observations are required to be taken. It was accepted in evidence that the decision to perform observations relies on the clinical judgment of the relevant clinician, which is a subjective decision which may be exercised incorrectly and at variance with other clinicians. Different clinicians carry out visits in the community and so have no overall view of a patient's presentation and any deterioration. Written records are available but evidence was heard that in this case, on the last visit, the record of the previous attendance was looked at and no history prior to that. Evidence was heard that Health Care Practitioners may have limited clinical training and rely on instructions and advice from trained nurses. In this case, evidence was heard that Mr King presented as feeling well but had high inflammatory markers, which may mask when observations are required to be carried out. Some patients may not be forthcoming about any symptoms unless specifically asked. ”

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 use specific symptom questions when deciding whether physiological observations are required

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence was heard that there is no formal structure in place as to when or with regard to the frequency of carrying out physiological observations on patients in the community. Observations are required to be taken if the attending clinician has any concerns about the patient's wellbeing or a deterioration in their condition, or at the request of a senior clinician or GP. No specific questions are asked of the patient, such as if they are feeling unwell, have pain or localised heat, the attending practitioner relies on general conversation carried out at their attendance to help form a view as to whether observations are required to be taken. It was accepted in evidence that the decision to perform observations relies on the clinical judgment of the relevant clinician, which is a subjective decision which may be exercised incorrectly and at variance with other clinicians. Different clinicians carry out visits in the community and so have no overall view of a patient's presentation and any deterioration. Written records are available but evidence was heard that in this case, on the last visit, the record of the previous attendance was looked at and no history prior to that. Evidence was heard that Health Care Practitioners may have limited clinical training and rely on instructions and advice from trained nurses. In this case, evidence was heard that Mr King presented as feeling well but had high inflammatory markers, which may mask when observations are required to be carried out. Some patients may not be forthcoming about any symptoms unless specifically asked. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable assessment of when physiological observations are needed.

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 a formal structure for the timing and frequency of physiological observations in the community

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence was heard that there is no formal structure in place as to when or with regard to the frequency of carrying out physiological observations on patients in the community. Observations are required to be taken if the attending clinician has any concerns about the patient's wellbeing or a deterioration in their condition, or at the request of a senior clinician or GP. No specific questions are asked of the patient, such as if they are feeling unwell, have pain or localised heat, the attending practitioner relies on general conversation carried out at their attendance to help form a view as to whether observations are required to be taken. It was accepted in evidence that the decision to perform observations relies on the clinical judgment of the relevant clinician, which is a subjective decision which may be exercised incorrectly and at variance with other clinicians. Different clinicians carry out visits in the community and so have no overall view of a patient's presentation and any deterioration. Written records are available but evidence was heard that in this case, on the last visit, the record of the previous attendance was looked at and no history prior to that. Evidence was heard that Health Care Practitioners may have limited clinical training and rely on instructions and advice from trained nurses. In this case, evidence was heard that Mr King presented as feeling well but had high inflammatory markers, which may mask when observations are required to be carried out. Some patients may not be forthcoming about any symptoms unless specifically asked. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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

Provide targeted deteriorating-patient training for podiatrists and non-registered community clinicians while investigating attendance barriers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Evidence was heard that Health Care Practitioners may have limited clinical training and rely on instructions and advice from trained nurses. The trust holds a clinical training programme that is open to registered and non-registered clinicians as per the competency matrix. Additional sessions are held, such as the Deteriorating Patient Training, which is open to all staff. From review of the attendance logs, it is acknowledged that there is lower uptake of this training by community staff, particularly podiatrists and non-registered clinicians including phlebotomists. The training sessions will have a targeted focus on those staff groups, and we are currently gathering information to understand the barriers and challenges to good attendance levels. It is also recognised that different staff groups will need different levels of training.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Complete consultation and ratification of the newly developed community competency matrix.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The current competency matrix has been under review and a newly developed community competency matrix has been out to consultation and is in the final stages of ratification. To support the competency management and sign off process, we have also developed competency passports aligned to each role. Each Place area will be completing a gap analysis of competency and training needs to ensure that our current clinical training programme is accessible and offers appropriate availability.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Complete place-level gap analyses of competency and training needs to improve training accessibility and availability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The current competency matrix has been under review and a newly developed community competency matrix has been out to consultation and is in the final stages of ratification. To support the competency management and sign off process, we have also developed competency passports aligned to each role. Each Place area will be completing a gap analysis of competency and training needs to ensure that our current clinical training programme is accessible and offers appropriate availability.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Include the assessment guide and escalation plan in Deteriorating Patient training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In this case, evidence was heard that Mr King presented as feeling well but had high inflammatory markers, which may mask when observations are required to be carried out. Some patients may not be forthcoming about any symptoms unless specifically asked. Trust guidance was updated and disseminated to all clinical staff to mandate the completion of physiological observations on every initial patient visit with immediate effect. A community patient escalation plan has been published and cascaded to support staff in identifying patients at risk of deterioration and the escalation actions that are required which includes the completion of physiological observations.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Create a community patient assessment guide containing exploratory questions to identify changes in condition and required further action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A community patient assessment guide is being created which will provide exploratory questions that community staff can use to ascertain any changes in the patient’s condition and identify if any further action is required. Both of these documents and how to use them will be included in the Deteriorating Patient training.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Pilot named-clinician and geographical-area caseloads and analyse the results to inform the future community nursing model.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Handovers are completed to share learning and patient updates and clinical leads are available to support with complex patient discussions and escalation of conditions. As a trust we recognise the importance of continuity of care and are currently piloting a named clinician and geographical area caseload approach which is being analysed and will inform the development of our future community nursing model.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Mandate physiological observations during every initial community patient visit and disseminate the updated clinical guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In this case, evidence was heard that Mr King presented as feeling well but had high inflammatory markers, which may mask when observations are required to be carried out. Some patients may not be forthcoming about any symptoms unless specifically asked. Trust guidance was updated and disseminated to all clinical staff to mandate the completion of physiological observations on every initial patient visit with immediate effect. A community patient escalation plan has been published and cascaded to support staff in identifying patients at risk of deterioration and the escalation actions that are required which includes the completion of physiological observations.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Deliver the clinical training programme on a rolling basis across locations, including enhanced wound-care and tissue-viability sessions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Concern 2: Mr King died a year ago and although there is a training programme which is being devised and rolled out it is not expected to be in place for a further eighteen months. We would like to apologise if information previously presented has not been clear or has caused yourself or Mr King’s family any confusion. NCH&C has a full clinical training programme and currently is and will continue to be delivered on a rolling basis across various locations. Whilst most of the clinical training is provided by our clinical education team, additional or enhanced sessions are provided by subject matter experts. One example of this is the wound care and tissue viability training package that is provided by the Tissue Viability Specialist Nurse. I have included the 2025 wound care and tissue viability training plan for information.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Scope clinical training attendance and accessibility to identify barriers and challenges to participation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of the action plan, we are currently scoping all clinical training to understand previous attendance levels and accessibility of sessions, so we can understand barriers or challenges to accessing the training. The tissue viability wound care pathway has been a priority workstream within our community transformation programme, ‘Better for All’. The workstream has a number of quality improvement initiatives and focus areas such as the implementation of the National Wound Care Strategy guidance and the use of digital technology in wound care, which have different timeframes for completion. For clarity, the eighteen-month timeframe stated at the inquest was relating to the Better for all transformation programme duration and some of the individual initiatives, rather than the training programme which is on a rolling agenda.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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 competency passports aligned to each clinical role to support competency management and sign-off.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The current competency matrix has been under review and a newly developed community competency matrix has been out to consultation and is in the final stages of ratification. To support the competency management and sign off process, we have also developed competency passports aligned to each role. Each Place area will be completing a gap analysis of competency and training needs to ensure that our current clinical training programme is accessible and offers appropriate availability.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Publish and cascade a community patient escalation plan covering deterioration identification, escalation actions and physiological observations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In this case, evidence was heard that Mr King presented as feeling well but had high inflammatory markers, which may mask when observations are required to be carried out. Some patients may not be forthcoming about any symptoms unless specifically asked. Trust guidance was updated and disseminated to all clinical staff to mandate the completion of physiological observations on every initial patient visit with immediate effect. A community patient escalation plan has been published and cascaded to support staff in identifying patients at risk of deterioration and the escalation actions that are required which includes the completion of physiological observations.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Restrict temporary-worker bookings for community shifts to staff known to the local team whose competencies are signed off.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The policy to prevent bank staff applying for roles when they have not undergone the required training is not yet in place. We acknowledge that there is inconsistent and variable levels of clinical supervision and monitoring/management of clinical competencies for this staff group. The majority of our bank staff are well known to the substantive teams and are supported with training and clinical supervision. The competency passports and matrix will provide a robust process for competency management moving forward. As part of the interim plan, restrictions are in place so that only temporary worker staff known to the local team and where competencies are signed off will be able to book community shifts.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Conduct ongoing shadow and observational review shifts to assess non-registered clinicians’ practical skills and theoretical knowledge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our non-registered clinicians do work under the delegation of registered staff who provide ongoing advice, support and review. Shadow and observational review shifts are completed to ensure competency of individuals in both practical skill and theoretical knowledge. This is an ongoing review process and will be supported with the competency passports. In addition to this monitoring and overview, there is an expectation that staff work within their limitations and escalate where further support and development is required.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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 more consistent approaches to patient-record review before visits, including for urgent-care visits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All community clinicians are given thirty minutes protected time each day for visit preparation, which includes reviewing of patient records prior to visits. We acknowledge that the record review can be variable across clinicians practice and that is an area of focus to understand why. It is also recognised that clinicians responding to urgent care visits may not have the ability to review the record at all prior to the visit. We are looking at ways to ensure more consistency with the senior operational and quality leadership team.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Operational pressures make consistent allocation of individual community clinicians difficult, requiring staff movement to minimise patient risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Different clinicians carry out visits in the community and so have no overall view of a patient's presentation and any deterioration. Written records are available but evidence was heard that in this case, on the last visit, the record of the previous attendance was looked at and no history from that visit. Due to operational pressures and the need to work flexibly with staff allocation to ensure patients with priority and complex needs are seen in a timely manner, it continues to be very difficult to provide consistent staff allocation to individual patients. Whilst this would be best practice for continuity of care, escalation actions such as the movement of staff are sometimes required to minimise risk to our patients. Whenever possible continuity of care is maintained and patients most at risk or at end of life would be prioritised.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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

Clinicians attending urgent care visits may be unable to review patient records before the visit, limiting consistent record review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All community clinicians are given thirty minutes protected time each day for visit preparation, which includes reviewing of patient records prior to visits. We acknowledge that the record review can be variable across clinicians practice and that is an area of focus to understand why. It is also recognised that clinicians responding to urgent care visits may not have the ability to review the record at all prior to the visit. We are looking at ways to ensure more consistency with the senior operational and quality leadership team.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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 eighteen-month timeframe applied to the transformation programme and some initiatives, not to the rolling clinical training programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Concern 2: Mr King died a year ago and although there is a training programme which is being devised and rolled out it is not expected to be in place for a further eighteen months. We would like to apologise if information previously presented has not been clear or has caused yourself or Mr King’s family any confusion. NCH&C has a full clinical training programme and currently is and will continue to be delivered on a rolling basis across various locations. Whilst most of the clinical training is provided by our clinical education team, additional or enhanced sessions are provided by subject matter experts. One example of this is the wound care and tissue viability training package that is provided by the Tissue Viability Specialist Nurse. I have included the 2025 wound care and tissue viability training plan for information.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2024

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