PFD report

Joseph Brindley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Dec 2020•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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 of imaging review processes to identify fractures
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging
  2. Insufficient availability of qualified radiologists for imaging review
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient radiology workforce capacity for timely imaging and interpretation
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.5

  1. Action

    Implement peer review for Advanced Practitioner Radiographers and Radiologists using a consistent reporting-review process.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.
  2. Action

    Require preceptorship, supervised double reporting, accuracy assessment and remedial development before newly qualified reporting radiographers practise independently.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.
  3. Action

    Hold monthly Radiology Event and Learning Meetings to discuss reporting discrepancies and support departmental learning.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.

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

  1. Position

    The team requesting diagnostic imaging is responsible for reviewing it to inform ongoing care and clinical management.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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 of imaging review processes to identify fractures

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard that the CT scan and the X-rays were said to have been examined carefully. However, the fractures were not identified. Availability of radiologists due to a shortage of qualified radiologists locally and nationally meant that radiographers as well as radiologists were involved in the reviews that did not identify the fractures. The final review where the fractures were not picked up was said to have included careful comparison with the earlier X-ray. The Trust has made HMC aware of review processes which seek to enhance clinical skills and avoid errors. However, it is unclear what steps have been taken to tackle and avoid the specific concerns that arose in this case where 3 qualified members of staff did not recognise the injury. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging.

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

Insufficient availability of qualified radiologists for imaging review

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard that the CT scan and the X-rays were said to have been examined carefully. However, the fractures were not identified. Availability of radiologists due to a shortage of qualified radiologists locally and nationally meant that radiographers as well as radiologists were involved in the reviews that did not identify the fractures. The final review where the fractures were not picked up was said to have included careful comparison with the earlier X-ray. The Trust has made HMC aware of review processes which seek to enhance clinical skills and avoid errors. However, it is unclear what steps have been taken to tackle and avoid the specific concerns that arose in this case where 3 qualified members of staff did not recognise the injury. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient radiology workforce capacity for timely imaging and interpretation.

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

Implement peer review for Advanced Practitioner Radiographers and Radiologists using a consistent reporting-review process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“System of Peer Review As you are aware, diagnostic interpretation errors are considered to be an inevitable occurrence in radiology and whilst technology has made enormous progress over the years, human factors remain. The Royal College of Radiologists and Society and College of Radiographers advise that consistent audit of image reporting is essential to ensuring service and the most effective and constructive way to carry this out is via a system of peer review.”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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

Require preceptorship, supervised double reporting, accuracy assessment and remedial development before newly qualified reporting radiographers practise independently.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to independent reporting, all appropriately qualified reporting Radiographers must successfully pass a robust formal audit process (preceptorship), which has its own documented requirements. This expectation matches that expected of a consultant Radiologist. As a result, the Trust have implemented Peer Review in relation to reporting by Advanced Practitioner Radiographers, which has been embedded within X-ray (plain film imaging) since 2017.”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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

Hold monthly Radiology Event and Learning Meetings to discuss reporting discrepancies and support departmental learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Radiology event and learning meeting (REALM) Cases identified for learning are also discussed at the Radiology event and learning meeting (REALM), a group meeting to aid discussion and learning. This is held monthly. This forum presents a robust process for both Consultant Radiologist and Advance Practitioner Radiographers to refer and discuss cases in relation to discrepancies identified during reporting of imaging or”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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 weekly random audits of reporting, including additional chest and abdominal examinations, with discrepancy arbitration and feedback.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Audit Schedule and Process Under the Trusts’ current audit process, 10 examinations are randomly collected for each reporter per week from the Trust Clinical Radiology Information System (CRIS). For those reporting on chest and abdominal x-rays, an additional 10 reports per week will also be selected and audited.”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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

Increase Radiology clinical capacity through additional substantive and locum radiologists, a Consultant Sonographer and Advanced Practice Reporting Radiographers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this time, investment has been made to increase the clinical workforce, increasing the number of substantive Radiologist from three to five with a further two undertaking their CESR qualification (Certificate of Eligibility for Specialist Registration), there are also 3 locum consultants bringing a total establishment to 8.5 whole time equivalent. This is an increase of 3.5 in the last 18 months. In addition to this we also have a Consultant Sonographer and 5 Advance Practice Reporting Radiographers.”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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 team requesting diagnostic imaging is responsible for reviewing it to inform ongoing care and clinical management.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is the role of the team requesting the diagnostic test to review the imaging performed to inform plans for the ongoing care and clinical management.”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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

Existing peer review, audit, discrepancy arbitration, feedback and learning arrangements provide the Trust’s response to radiology reporting errors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“System of Peer Review As you are aware, diagnostic interpretation errors are considered to be an inevitable occurrence in radiology and whilst technology has made enormous progress over the years, human factors remain. The Royal College of Radiologists and Society and College of Radiographers advise that consistent audit of image reporting is essential to ensuring service and the most effective and constructive way to carry this out is via a system of peer review.”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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 rib fractures were obscured by extensive pleural effusion and were unlikely to have altered treatment or contributed to death.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During an internal review of the incident it was identified that on 11th March when presenting to ED and on all subsequent chest x-rays until 1st April, the rib fractures were not visible. This is due to the extensive pleural effusion”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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.1

  1. 1

    Establish a clinical support services division encompassing Radiology to provide coordinated leadership, oversight and governance.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.

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

Establish a clinical support services division encompassing Radiology to provide coordinated leadership, oversight and governance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Departmental transformation plans I would like to take this opportunity to make you aware of steps taken by the organisation to strengthen both the clinical and managerial teams within Radiology. In 2019, the division of clinical support services was established and encompasses, diagnostics including Radiology. This was intended to provide coordinated leadership, oversight and governance.”

Source location

2020-0294-Tameside-and-Glossop-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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