PFD report

Jeffrey MARSHALL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Aug 2023•Surrey

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

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 raised2

  1. Failure to provide recommendations for discussing anticoagulation withholding risks and benefits with patients
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to discuss patient care options and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe anticoagulant management
  2. Lack of national guidance on when to recommence anticoagulation after traumatic head injury
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuries
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.3

  1. Action

    Assess the issue through the guidelines surveillance process to determine whether guidance recommendations should be updated or newly issued.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 August 2024.
  2. Action

    Discuss with relevant specialist societies the possibility of developing a consensus statement on restarting anticoagulants after traumatic intracranial haemorrhage.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 August 2024.
  3. Action

    Review NICE’s response and consider whether NHS England must take resultant action.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 August 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Individualised risk-benefit decisions may make it challenging to produce specific guidance on restarting anticoagulation after traumatic head injury.

    Stated by NHS EnglandUnable 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

Failure to provide recommendations for discussing anticoagulation withholding risks and benefits with patients

Wider context from the report

“- Mr Marshall was prescribed anticoagulation (Edoxaban) to mitigate his increased risk of developing thrombus due to atrial fibrillation and a permanent pacemaker; - Anticoagulation was withheld following a traumatic head injury, in accordance with NICE guidance; - There is no national guidance to assist clinicians in determining when anticoagulation should be recommenced in this scenario, nor any recommendation for clinicians to discuss the risks and benefits of withholding anticoagulation with patients to enable them to make an informed decision as to when to recommence anticoagulation. Consideration should be given to whether any steps can be taken to address the above concerns. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to discuss patient care options and decisions; Unsafe anticoagulant management.

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 national guidance on when to recommence anticoagulation after traumatic head injury

Wider context from the report

“- Mr Marshall was prescribed anticoagulation (Edoxaban) to mitigate his increased risk of developing thrombus due to atrial fibrillation and a permanent pacemaker; - Anticoagulation was withheld following a traumatic head injury, in accordance with NICE guidance; - There is no national guidance to assist clinicians in determining when anticoagulation should be recommenced in this scenario, nor any recommendation for clinicians to discuss the risks and benefits of withholding anticoagulation with patients to enable them to make an informed decision as to when to recommence anticoagulation. Consideration should be given to whether any steps can be taken to address the above concerns. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuries.

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

Assess the issue through the guidelines surveillance process to determine whether guidance recommendations should be updated or newly issued.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In summary, we agree that this specific question is not well covered by current guidance. NICE will consider the issues raised through our guidelines surveillance team and process, and update or issue new guidance recommendations, accordingly, depending on the outcome of these considerations. We will also discuss with relevant specialist societies the possibility of reaching a consensus statement on this subject.”

Source location

Response from NICE
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 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

Discuss with relevant specialist societies the possibility of developing a consensus statement on restarting anticoagulants after traumatic intracranial haemorrhage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In summary, we agree that this specific question is not well covered by current guidance. NICE will consider the issues raised through our guidelines surveillance team and process, and update or issue new guidance recommendations, accordingly, depending on the outcome of these considerations. We will also discuss with relevant specialist societies the possibility of reaching a consensus statement on this subject.”

Source location

Response from NICE
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 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

Review NICE’s response and consider whether NHS England must take resultant action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note, in addition to NHS England, that your Report has been addressed to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). They are the appropriate organisation to respond to the Coroner’s concerns, as the provider of the relevant clinical guidance. NHS England will carefully review NICE’s response to the Coroner in due course, and consider whether any resultant actions are required from us.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 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

Individualised risk-benefit decisions may make it challenging to produce specific guidance on restarting anticoagulation after traumatic head injury.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It should however be noted that there will need to be a significant degree of individualised care and decision-making in cases such as Jeffrey’s. There will need to be careful consideration of the risks of atrial fibrillation stroke versus the risk of precipitating bleeding (dependent on different patient factors), and that this could provide challenge to producing specific guidance on this issue.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 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

NICE, as the provider of relevant clinical guidance, is the appropriate organisation to respond to concerns about anticoagulation guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note, in addition to NHS England, that your Report has been addressed to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). They are the appropriate organisation to respond to the Coroner’s concerns, as the provider of the relevant clinical guidance. NHS England will carefully review NICE’s response to the Coroner in due course, and consider whether any resultant actions are required from us.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026