PFD report

Steven Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Nov 2017•South Yorkshire (Eastern)

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
4

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. Failure of staff to act directly on residents' illness
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recognition and response to illness in care-home residents
  2. Failure to recognise illness as requiring incident reporting
  3. Failure to ensure the resident and one-to-one carer attend general-practitioner consultations
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate GP consultation provision for safe patient assessmentPart of recurring concern: Inadequate support for vulnerable patients during healthcare assessment and decisions
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.2

  1. Action

    Use the Anticipatory HealthCare Calendar to assess health symptoms, direct staff responses, record significant communications, train staff, and audit use weekly.

    Stated by Beech Cliffe LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
  2. Action

    Use the Disability Distress Assessment Tool in daily reporting to identify changes from baseline and prompt behaviour monitoring and health-related reporting.

    Stated by Beech Cliffe LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    There was no evidence that staff misunderstood the requirement for incident reports to include illness-related concerns.

    Stated by Beech Cliffe LimitedDisputes 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 of staff to act directly on residents' illness

Wider context from the report

“(3) In practice staff did not act directly in dealing with illness of a resident, rather channelling medical issues through the registered managers. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recognition and response to illness in care-home residents.

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 recognise illness as requiring incident reporting

Wider context from the report

“(2) Staff did not appreciate the importance of incident reports and that such reports encompassed illness. ”

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 ensure the resident and one-to-one carer attend general-practitioner consultations

Wider context from the report

“(5) In the case of a non-verbal resident with serious problems very early referral to a general practitioner was not made and when made the resident was not present at the consultation nor was his one to one carer in attendance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate GP consultation provision for safe patient assessment; Inadequate support for vulnerable patients during healthcare assessment and decisions.

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 escalate carers' concerns to senior staff

Wider context from the report

“(1) Although a system of written recording was in place, concerns of carers were not emphasised nor escalated to seniors either through incident reports or verbally so that opportunities to initiate full investigations by seniors and/or managers were lost. ”

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

Delays in early general-practitioner referral for residents with serious problems

Wider context from the report

“(5) In the case of a non-verbal resident with serious problems very early referral to a general practitioner was not made and when made the resident was not present at the consultation nor was his one to one carer in attendance. ”

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 of staff to call emergency services for serious incidents

Wider context from the report

“(4) On the occasion of a serious incident of faecal vomit, staff did not assume responsibility for calling emergency services but telephoned the registered managers who in turn did not appreciate the seriousness of the situation resulting in a delay in transferring the resident to hospital. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of emergency response leadership and coordination; Failure to ensure care staff can initiate appropriate emergency calls.

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 recognise the seriousness of situations requiring urgent hospital transfer

Wider context from the report

“(4) On the occasion of a serious incident of faecal vomit, staff did not assume responsibility for calling emergency services but telephoned the registered managers who in turn did not appreciate the seriousness of the situation resulting in a delay in transferring the resident to hospital. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency access to hospital care.

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

Use the Anticipatory HealthCare Calendar to assess health symptoms, direct staff responses, record significant communications, train staff, and audit use weekly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In June 2014 the Anticipatory HealthCare Calendar (AHCC) was introduced. ████████ raised the introduction of this system in her evidence to the Inquest on 9 November 2017. This is a NHS proforma that acts as a criteria-referenced monitoring system for health-related issues in those with learning disabilities. Specific symptoms are listed and given a risk level of Green, Amber or Red; amber and red directly link to required specific staff actions and responses, which are described within the tool and recorded on a Significant Communication Sheet, part of the tool. These range from continued monitoring, through administering pain relief or attending a GP surgery when possible, to contacting emergency services immediately. AHCC is a career-level tool that is directive in terms of response to specific symptoms.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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 Disability Distress Assessment Tool in daily reporting to identify changes from baseline and prompt behaviour monitoring and health-related reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2016 we piloted a new daily reporting system which incorporates another NHS system, the Disability Distress Assessment Tool (DisDAT). This is another criteria-referenced behaviour monitoring tool and again links to pain identification and prompts staff to complete behaviour monitoring forms on every occasion when a baseline of “no concerning behaviours seen” is changed. The system is designed as an aide memoire, prompting staff to ensure that any reporting relating to health or other issues has been carried out. We rolled DisDAT out fully at the staff meeting on 17 November 2017. Neither the Coroner nor the Interested Parties explored these issues with Paul and/or Sarah at the Inquest so it was not apparent it was in the scope.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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

There was no evidence that staff misunderstood the requirement for incident reports to include illness-related concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“No evidence was heard that staff did not think incident reports were to include illness. Paul gave evidence to the Inquest on 8 November 2017 that all staff were trained in the completion of incident report forms, which included for illness and when behaviour went from green to amber or to red on the traffic light system. Paul told the Inquest that staff had all completed these forms before, it is not clear why they did not do so in this period for Steven. ████████ told the Inquest on 9 November 2017 that staff had been trained on the completion of incident report forms and had completed them on previous occasions for different behaviours.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 4 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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 referral timing was considered reasonable because diarrhoea was then the most likely cause and the stool sample was delivered promptly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In evidence to the Inquest on 9 November Sarah confirmed that Monday 25 November 2013 was the first time she was aware of Steven's symptoms, staff had not raised concerns before nor completed any incident report forms. ███████ reviewed the records and noted that before a bout of diarrhoea that morning Steven had not opened his bowels for 3 days, so thought he possibly had diarrhoea and/or a tummy bug. Sarah therefore asked staff to obtain a stool sample for testing.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 6 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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 resident’s absence from the GP consultation was treated as a justified one-off decision based on infection and behavioural concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As set out at paragraph 17 of her witness statement dated 4 October 2017, paragraph 20 of her witness statement dated 4 April 2016 and in evidence to the Inquest on 9 November 2017 Sarah did not take Steven to the appointment on 28 November 2013 because she was concerned that due to his diarrhoea and the unknown result of the stool sample he could be infectious. Also Steven had previously exhibited anxious and challenging behaviour at appointments. She explained her reasoning to the GP, ███████ who was happy to proceed with the appointment. When asked by the Coroner on 8 November 2016 ███████ confirmed that he could have insisted on seeing Steven either at the GP surgery or at the Home.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 6 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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

Staff were trained and authorised to contact doctors or emergency services directly, rather than being required to route medical issues through managers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All staff had full first aid training, which includes advising them to call an ambulance in an emergency. Sarah gave evidence to the Inquest on 9 November 2017 that all staff have responsibility to meet the needs of residents and all have authority to contact Doctors etc and all telephone numbers are and were kept in a directory in the staff office; there was no need to go up the ladder for approval before the call could be made.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 4 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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 evidence did not establish that staff encountered or recognised a faecal-vomit emergency requiring an immediate ambulance call.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 7 November 2017 the Inquest heard evidence from ████████ (N'e Hayward) that she was the Senior on duty ███████ told the Inquest that on the morning of 8 December 2013 Clare Gray reported to her that Steven had vomited faeces. Kelly explained to the Inquest that she made sure that Steven was ok and contacted ███████ to relay what had happened. ███████ gave evidence that she could not say for sure if Steven had vomited faeces or if he had passed a bowel motion and then eaten it; the latter had happened previously. The Coroner did not explore this further.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 5 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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.2

  1. 1

    Record behavioural issues in incident reports and injuries or faecal vomiting using body charts and Significant Communication Sheets.

    Stated by Beech Cliffe LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
  2. 2

    Apply a traffic-light mood and behaviour monitoring system to night reports, triggering incident reports for amber behaviour and management review.

    Stated by Beech Cliffe LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The evidence did not establish that care-home or hospital delays caused or contributed to Steven’s death.

    Stated by Beech Cliffe LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Record behavioural issues in incident reports and injuries or faecal vomiting using body charts and Significant Communication Sheets.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The AHCC system also removes any confusion about incident reporting, which now relates to purely behavioural issues, although this does not ignore the fact that pain may be a trigger for behavioural concerns. Incident Report forms are completed for behavioural issues. We have body charts to record injury. If a resident vomited faecal matter now this would be recorded on a body chart and detailed in a Significant Communication Sheet.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 4 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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

Apply a traffic-light mood and behaviour monitoring system to night reports, triggering incident reports for amber behaviour and management review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The night staff failed to report behavioural issues. These issues were not explored in detail at the Inquest, if they had been Sarah and/or Paul would have explained that in February 2014 they introduced a “traffic light” mood and behaviour monitoring system that the day staff were already using. Paul explained to all night staff that if the resident was awake at night then their mood should be recorded on their night report. Amber behaviour was the trigger for an incident report to be completed; any behavioural issues whatsoever have triggered an incident report which would be seen the next morning by all managers.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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 evidence did not establish that care-home or hospital delays caused or contributed to Steven’s death.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the coroner has no power to correct/amend the Record of Inquest, and whilst Beech Cliffe Ltd is unable to challenge the coroner’s conclusion by Judicial Review, the statements to the effect that it was “unclear” whether the deficiencies found influenced the outcome were contrary to the evidence. The issue of causation was explored carefully and at length. There was no medical evidence to the effect that any delay by either the care home (or for that matter the hospital) contributed to Steven’s death. There was nothing “unclear” or “uncertain” about that evidence. On the contrary, Professor ████████ gave evidence that a life saving diagnosis could only have been made with a CT scan. Dr ████████ evidence, supported by Professor ████████ was that he wouldn’t have ordered one even if he had seen Steven on 28 November 2013.”

Source location

2017-0357-Response-by-Beech-Cliffe-Limited
Page 1 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026