PFD report

Jonathan Brett Yates · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Apr 2019•Gloucestershire

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised1

  1. Failure to communicate patients' nutritional status effectively to hospital staff during admission
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirements
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.1

  1. Action

    Run safety huddles on selected wards to disseminate patient-safety information and review patients’ nutritional status, including NBM changes.

    Stated by Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 June 2019.

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

  1. Position

    The concern concerns a one-off failure to use signage, not a failure to assess or manage the patient’s nutritional needs.

    Stated by Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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 communicate patients' nutritional status effectively to hospital staff during admission

Wider context from the report

“How the nutritional status of a patient, in particular when a patient is nil by mouth, is communicated effectively to staff caring for a patient during an admission to hospital. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirements.

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

Run safety huddles on selected wards to disseminate patient-safety information and review patients’ nutritional status, including NBM changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a practice development, and to increase the quality of handovers, the Trust has recently introduced a pilot of the ‘safety huddle’ concept on selected wards. The aim of this daily event is enable an effective dissemination of patient safety information to the whole ward team, in a structured conversation. This looks in particular at patient needs in terms of falls risks, social work requirements, communication with relatives together with identification of the sickest patients and other immediate priorities such as nutritional status.”

Source location

2019-0132-Response-by-Gloucestershire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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 concern concerns a one-off failure to use signage, not a failure to assess or manage the patient’s nutritional needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the concern in this case arises from the failure on one occasion to use signage to safely and effectively communicate Mr Yates’ nutritional status to the clinical team, rather than the assessment and management of his nutritional needs.”

Source location

2019-0132-Response-by-Gloucestershire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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 nutritional-management systems are appropriate, available and in use to safely manage patients’ nutritional care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On review of the professional processes by which nutritional status is managed, the Trust is satisfied that appropriate systems are available and in use to safely manage the nutritional care of patients.”

Source location

2019-0132-Response-by-Gloucestershire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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