PFD report

Kate Louise PIERCE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Dec 2013•North Wales (East and Central)

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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.

Concerns raised3

  1. Failure to correctly diagnose patients' conditions
  2. Failure to provide truthful information about seeking clinical second opinions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical second-opinion processes
  3. Continued practice by a GP whose fitness to practice is in doubt
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate professional registration and fitness-to-practise safeguards
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    Responsible Officer oversight, complaint reporting and periodic revalidation were considered sufficient to address concerns about current fitness to practise.

    Stated by General Medical CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 correctly diagnose patients' conditions

Wider context from the report

“On the 29th of March 2006 Kate was taken into the Wrexham Maelor Hospital where she was examined by a Dr ████████. It appears from the evidence available that he failed to deal correctly with the diagnosis of Kate's condition and furthermore there is a belief that he may have misled the parents of Kate by indicating that he had sought a second opinion from a colleague before discharging her when this was not in fact the case. I understand that enquiries were made previously by the GMC following a complaint against Dr ████████ but that no action has been taken due to legal action by the Dr in view of the elapse of a relevant time limit. In the course of my current investigation following Kate’s death, a statement has been obtained from a witness namely Dr ████████ and a copy of this is annexed hereto. My view is that this statement casts doubt on Dr ████████ fitness to practice and this is of grave concern as my understanding is that he currently continues to practice as a GP within my Corner Area. In view of this I consider that there is a risk of future deaths. ”

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 provide truthful information about seeking clinical second opinions

Wider context from the report

“On the 29th of March 2006 Kate was taken into the Wrexham Maelor Hospital where she was examined by a Dr ████████. It appears from the evidence available that he failed to deal correctly with the diagnosis of Kate's condition and furthermore there is a belief that he may have misled the parents of Kate by indicating that he had sought a second opinion from a colleague before discharging her when this was not in fact the case. I understand that enquiries were made previously by the GMC following a complaint against Dr ████████ but that no action has been taken due to legal action by the Dr in view of the elapse of a relevant time limit. In the course of my current investigation following Kate’s death, a statement has been obtained from a witness namely Dr ████████ and a copy of this is annexed hereto. My view is that this statement casts doubt on Dr ████████ fitness to practice and this is of grave concern as my understanding is that he currently continues to practice as a GP within my Corner Area. In view of this I consider that there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical second-opinion 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

Continued practice by a GP whose fitness to practice is in doubt

Wider context from the report

“On the 29th of March 2006 Kate was taken into the Wrexham Maelor Hospital where she was examined by a Dr ████████. It appears from the evidence available that he failed to deal correctly with the diagnosis of Kate's condition and furthermore there is a belief that he may have misled the parents of Kate by indicating that he had sought a second opinion from a colleague before discharging her when this was not in fact the case. I understand that enquiries were made previously by the GMC following a complaint against Dr ████████ but that no action has been taken due to legal action by the Dr in view of the elapse of a relevant time limit. In the course of my current investigation following Kate’s death, a statement has been obtained from a witness namely Dr ████████ and a copy of this is annexed hereto. My view is that this statement casts doubt on Dr ████████ fitness to practice and this is of grave concern as my understanding is that he currently continues to practice as a GP within my Corner Area. In view of this I consider that there is a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate professional registration and fitness-to-practise safeguards.

Open source report

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

Responsible Officer oversight, complaint reporting and periodic revalidation were considered sufficient to address concerns about current fitness to practise.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of Dr ████████ current fitness to practise, we have not received any further complaints about Dr ████████ since 2007. Additionally, as part of the process of revalidation of a doctor’s licence to practise, doctors must have a Responsible Officer whose statutory duties include reporting concerns to us, if they call into question a doctor’s current fitness to practise. Our Employer Liaison Advisor who is a senior member”

Source location

2013-0363-Response-by-General-Medical-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 December 2013

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 five-year statutory rule and unsuccessful exceptional-circumstances test prevented further investigation of the historical events and audit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We considered the complaint by Mr ████████ in accordance with our statutory framework and initially decided to investigate the case although the events at that time were more than five years old. Our statutory rules preclude us from investigating events that are more than five years old unless it is in the public interest in the exceptional circumstances to do so.”

Source location

2013-0363-Response-by-General-Medical-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 December 2013

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026