PFD report

Susan Wendy Bracegirdle · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Feb 2024•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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
11

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 obtain input from key people involved in care during safeguarding reviews
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to learn from deaths through systematic reviewPart of recurring concern: Unreliable safeguarding review and learning processes
  2. Failure to share pressure-ulcer care plans with the care team
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate management of pressure ulcers
  3. Lack of a communication strategy supporting joint working and family involvement in pressure-ulcer care
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and familiesPart of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in safety-critical care decisionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate management of pressure ulcersPart of recurring concern: Inadequate wound management for deteriorating wounds
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.8

  1. Action

    Photograph and upload every wound to the patient’s electronic record weekly.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2024.
  2. Action

    Ensure a Being Open discussion occurs with patients or families after all rapid reviews deemed to involve no lapses in care, with compliance monitored monthly.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2024.
  3. Action

    Discuss with the nursing team the importance of following up concerns and actions directly with GPs rather than relying on care-home staff.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 February 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    The registered GP had access to current District Nursing information through the shared electronic record, contrary to the concern that information was unavailable.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 obtain input from key people involved in care during safeguarding reviews

Wider context from the report

“4. There had been a safeguarding review undertaken. However key people involved in her care had not provided input to the review which meant there was no clear holistic assessment of what lessons could be learnt to reduce the risk of deaths from pressure ulcers in the future. It was unclear why such an approach had been taken ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review; Unreliable safeguarding review and learning 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 share pressure-ulcer care plans with the care team

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest heard evidence that because Mrs Bracegirdle was in a care home setting the District Nurses were responsible for management of her pressure ulcers. The care home was asked to ensure pressure relieving processes were followed. However, the District Nurses did not share care plans with the care team on the basis that they were digital documents and were care plans for the use of District Nurses. As a consequence, the care home management were not fully sighted, and joint care was more difficult to deliver increasing the risk of the pressure ulcers deteriorating. ”

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

Lack of a communication strategy supporting joint working and family involvement in pressure-ulcer care

Wider context from the report

“2. There was no communication strategy in place as a consequence of an approach that did not promote team /joint working. The inquest heard that as a consequence the family were unsighted on the condition of Mrs Bracegirdle until shortly before her admission to hospital. This meant that the family could not support the work to reduce the risk of the pressure ulcers deteriorating further and were not able to be a proactive about the care she was receiving increasing the risk of her pressure ulcers deteriorating ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and families; Failure to involve families and carers in safety-critical care decisions; Inadequate management of pressure ulcers; Inadequate wound management for deteriorating wounds.

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 upload updated images for Tissue Viability review of deteriorating pressure ulcers

Wider context from the report

“6. The Tissue Viability team had been asked by the District Nurses for input. This was provided remotely via access to photos taken by the District Nursing Team. Whilst it was clear that remote review could be effective it was not in this case because the review was based on an older image and an updated image showing a deteriorating picture in relation to the pressure ulcers was not uploaded. This was as a result of lack of joint working and effective communication. The impact was that what would have been helpful expert input from the TVN was not provided to a deteriorating picture. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate district nursing wound care; 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 to provide the GP with sufficient information about pressure-ulcer deterioration

Wider context from the report

“3. The GP was asked to provide input. Due to a lack of information sharing the GP who dealt with Mrs Bracegirdle does not seem to have appreciated the extent of the issue and as a consequence there was no face-to-face examination and antibiotics were not started. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers; Inadequate wound management for deteriorating wounds; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care.

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 share and discuss internal pressure-ulcer reviews with the family

Wider context from the report

“5. An earlier internal review by the District Nursing team when Mrs Bracegirdle’s pressure ulcer became a category 3 was not shared or discussed with the family and they were unsighted on the issue. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers; Inadequate wound management for deteriorating wounds.

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

Photograph and upload every wound to the patient’s electronic record weekly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All wounds are to be photographed and uploaded on to the patient’s electronic record system once per week by the District Nursing Team.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 8 · response
Published 12 February 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

Ensure a Being Open discussion occurs with patients or families after all rapid reviews deemed to involve no lapses in care, with compliance monitored monthly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the Trust acknowledge that a ‘Being Open’ conversation should have taken place with Mrs Bracegirdle’s next of kin to discuss the pressure ulcer damage and the outcome of the rapid review of the incident. Going forward the Trust will ensure that a ‘Being Open’ discussion does take place with patients or families for all raid reviews (which are deemed no lapses in care), and this will be monitored through the monthly Quality Assurance Meetings.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 8 · response
Published 12 February 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 the nursing team the importance of following up concerns and actions directly with GPs rather than relying on care-home staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the Trust review of the pressure ulcer review, an area of learning was identified in relation to communication with the GP and an action was taken: This was to discuss with the nursing team the importance of following up any concerns or actions with the GP and not to rely on carers to ensure this is done. Since this rapid review, there have been no further incidents in relation to contact with GP practices.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 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 the Safeguarding Adult Review, including a multi-agency practitioner learning event and production of the review report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that following initial review of Ms Bracegirdle’s case it was confirmed that the circumstances of the case met the criteria for a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR) as set out in Section 44 of The Care Act 2014.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 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 an information leaflet explaining how families can contact District Nursing for pressure-area-care advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In undertaking this review there was evidence of verbal communication with the care home staff and written notes within the communication book at the care home. However, an information leaflet will be developed to promote communication.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 4 · response
Published 12 February 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

Follow up actions establishing clear responsibility for escalating wound-care concerns to GPs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The district nursing notes dated 09 December 2022 refer to the wound having a strong malodour and heavy grey-yellow exudate. It was recorded “follow up with the GP as I suspect the wound is infected”. However, it is not clear whether the district nurses or care home staff had the responsibility for doing this. The second rapid review undertaken by the district nurse team leader on 16 December 2022 identified that there was no evidence that the concerns were escalated to the GP and a referral to the GP was only made on 13 December 2022, at which time antibiotics were commenced for a wound infection. Action arising from the rapid review was to discuss with the district nursing team the importance of following up any concerns or actions with the GP and not relying on the care staff to ensure this is done.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 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 joint-working Quality Statements in the service’s next assessment and follow up actions addressing previously identified communication shortfalls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At our last inspection of Stable Steps Care Centre on 8 and 19 June 2023 we found that improvements were needed to ensure communication worked effectively within the home. Feedback from people living at the home and their families was mixed with some people feeling staff were responsive to their needs, whilst others gave examples of where they felt there had been delays in receiving treatment. Families also told us communication between healthcare services and the home could be difficult, staff were not always able to identify deterioration in people and that liaison and referrals with external services could be improved.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 5 · response
Published 12 February 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

Follow up the registered manager’s investigation into failures to keep families informed and seek assurance that resulting actions mitigate communication risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We would expect, as parties to general reviews of care whilst at the home, a person’s family to be involved and informed, with the consent of the individual, regarding their care, treatment and progress. We note that the registered manager in her statement, advised that she had apologised to the family for the failure to keep them informed regarding Mrs Bracegirdle’s pressure ulcers and that she had committed to investigating this shortfall. We will follow up on the outcome of the investigation to seek assurance that any actions arising from the investigation will mitigate further risks that families are not kept informed where appropriate within acceptable timeframes.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 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 registered GP had access to current District Nursing information through the shared electronic record, contrary to the concern that information was unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Members of the District Nursing Team input their clinical notes onto the Emis clinical system; these notes are visible to a patient’s GP as they use the same clinical system. This does ensure that the registered GP does have access to full details of all District Nurse visits and treatments. This would include confirmation of referral to Tissue Viability Service and access to any wound photographs which may have been taken as these are uploaded into Emis.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 5 · response
Published 12 February 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 care home provider is responsible for keeping family members updated about residents’ health, including pressure ulcer management and nursing advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The care home provider would be expected to keep family members updated in relation to all aspects of a resident’s health and wellbeing as a matter of course, using the information from the communications book, and from direct conversations with the attending district nurses. In the event of further questions from the family then it would be expected for the care home staff to liaise with the attending team to obtain information to address those questions. This would include information about pressure ulcer management and any advice from community colleagues (District Nursing Team) or the TVN Team.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 4 · response
Published 12 February 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 review panel found no District Nursing care lapses that directly contributed to the acquired pressure ulcers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Division of Integrated Care at Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, carried out two rapid reviews in relation to Mrs Bracegirdle’s pressure ulcers, one in October 2022 and one in December 2022. These were presented to the Serious Incident Review Group (SIRG), chaired by the Deputy Director of Governance and panel members. The panel agreed that there were no lapses in care by the District Nursing Team which directly contributed to the”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 7 · response
Published 12 February 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

CQC previously had no remit over local authorities’ safeguarding reviews, although it now assesses local authorities’ safety duties.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. There had been a safeguarding review undertaken. However key people involved in her care had not provided input to the review which meant there was no clear holistic assessment of what lessons could be learnt to reduce the risk of deaths from pressure ulcers in the future. It was unclear why such an approach had been taken.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 7 · response
Published 12 February 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

It is unclear whether updated tissue-viability advice would have altered treatment, although providing an updated image would have been helpful.

Verbatim wording from the response

“an updated image showing a deteriorating picture in relation to the pressure ulcers was not uploaded. This was as a result of lack of joint working and effective communication. The impact was that what would have been helpful expert input from the TVN was not provided to a deteriorating picture.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 8 · response
Published 12 February 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 GP could reasonably expect tissue viability specialists to lead pressure-ulcer treatment and advise the GP if treatment became ineffective.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. The GP was asked to provide input. Due to a lack of information sharing the GP who dealt with Mrs Bracegirdle does not seem to have appreciated the extent of the issue and as a consequence there was no face-to-face examination and antibiotics were not started.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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.3

  1. 1

    Engage Stockport NHS Foundation Trust at future meetings to ensure incident reflection occurs and learning is disseminated.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2024.
  2. 2

    Use the new Single Assessment Framework and six evidence categories to assess providers and gather ongoing evidence.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 February 2024.
  3. 3

    Continue monitoring Stable Steps Care Centre and liaising with the Integrated Care Board to review ongoing risks and feedback.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 February 2024.

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

Engage Stockport NHS Foundation Trust at future meetings to ensure incident reflection occurs and learning is disseminated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the two rapid reviews held by the district nursing team, the proposed action in both cases was for a local review – required to address the care and service delivery issues identified and to share learning from the incident. We will follow this matter up with Stockport NHS Foundation Trust at future engagement meetings to ensure that appropriate reflection has taken place and learning from this incident disseminated.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 8 · response
Published 12 February 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

Use the new Single Assessment Framework and six evidence categories to assess providers and gather ongoing evidence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 6 February 2024 Operations Network North went live with our new Single Assessment Framework. This approach will cover all sectors, service types and levels and the five key questions will stay central to this approach. However, the previous key lines of enquiry (KLOEs) and prompts have been replaced with new ‘quality statements’. The quality ratings statements are described as ‘we statements’ as they have been written from a provider’s perspective to help them understand what we expect of them. They draw on previous work developed with Think Local Act Personal (TLAP), National Voices and the Coalition for Collaborative Care on Making it Real. They set clear expectations of providers, based on people’s experiences and the standards of care they expect.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 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

Continue monitoring Stable Steps Care Centre and liaising with the Integrated Care Board to review ongoing risks and feedback.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to ensure that this risk is minimised to the lowest possible level and to ensure service users are not placed at risk at Stable Steps Care Centre, we are continually monitoring the service and liaising with the Integrated Care Board to review any ongoing risks and feedback.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 8 · response
Published 12 February 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