PFD report

Marion Nickson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Jul 2023•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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
7

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 raised2

  1. Failure to maintain observable bay nursing because of insufficient staff time and competing ward demands
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain required continuous patient observation
  2. Lack of staff understanding and prioritisation of the risk of leaving high-risk patients unobserved
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
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

    Implement the Long Term Workforce Plan priorities to improve training, staff retention and workforce sustainability for inpatient care.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 July 2023.
  2. Action

    Provide and publicise FallSafe training covering observation, inpatient-fall risk reduction and post-fall management.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2023.

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

  1. Position

    CQC does not consider bay nursing itself a national patient-safety issue; staffing pressures, including inadequate levels, create the safety risk.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionDisputes 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 maintain observable bay nursing because of insufficient staff time and competing ward demands

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that to deal with the risk of falls in patients deemed to be high risk the concept of observable bay nursing had been introduced at both Trusts. At both Trusts Mrs Nickson fell whilst unobserved due to the challenges of maintaining the bays as observed bays. The challenge for both trusts had arisen where staff were required to deal with issues out of the bay and had left the bay area. The cause of that was multifactorial and included a lack of understanding of the risk presented by leaving the bay and a need for the staff to complete other urgent tasks due to the demand on ward staff. The inquest heard that preventing in patient falls to reduce avoidable deaths was recognised as being important and that across the NHS bays of this nature were seen as a way to reduce the risk. However they would only work if staff had the time and there were cultural changes amongst staff where it was recognised that observing patients had to be seen as a priority and not something that could be left to fit around other demands. The evidence was clear that if observable bays could not function as intended then across the NHS there would continue to be avoidable falls and consequential deaths. If bay nursing could not effectively delivered due to resourcing then other options to keep patients safe needed to be explored by Acute Trusts. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain required continuous patient observation.

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 staff understanding and prioritisation of the risk of leaving high-risk patients unobserved

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that to deal with the risk of falls in patients deemed to be high risk the concept of observable bay nursing had been introduced at both Trusts. At both Trusts Mrs Nickson fell whilst unobserved due to the challenges of maintaining the bays as observed bays. The challenge for both trusts had arisen where staff were required to deal with issues out of the bay and had left the bay area. The cause of that was multifactorial and included a lack of understanding of the risk presented by leaving the bay and a need for the staff to complete other urgent tasks due to the demand on ward staff. The inquest heard that preventing in patient falls to reduce avoidable deaths was recognised as being important and that across the NHS bays of this nature were seen as a way to reduce the risk. However they would only work if staff had the time and there were cultural changes amongst staff where it was recognised that observing patients had to be seen as a priority and not something that could be left to fit around other demands. The evidence was clear that if observable bays could not function as intended then across the NHS there would continue to be avoidable falls and consequential deaths. If bay nursing could not effectively delivered due to resourcing then other options to keep patients safe needed to be explored by Acute Trusts. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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 the Long Term Workforce Plan priorities to improve training, staff retention and workforce sustainability for inpatient care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You also raised the issue of appropriate levels of resourcing within observable nursing bays. In June this year, the NHS published its Long Term Workforce Plan, setting out”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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

Provide and publicise FallSafe training covering observation, inpatient-fall risk reduction and post-fall management.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The topic of observation is covered in the e-learning training module ‘FallSafe’ produced by the RCP and NHS England. The module is freely available and is widely publicised and used across the NHS and covers the knowledge needed to identify and reduce patient and environmental risk factors to assist with reducing inpatient falls as well as post fall management.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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 does not consider bay nursing itself a national patient-safety issue; staffing pressures, including inadequate levels, create the safety risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CQC have not identified bay nursing as a national issue because it is not a patient safety issue in and of itself. However, we do identify workforce pressures and staffing levels as a national issue as this is a cause of patient safety risks. When staffing levels fall below acceptable standards any clinical intervention becomes a safety issue, we would indicate our findings on this. We highlight this in our reports and ratings demonstrating the level of risk, and appropriate regulatory action taken in response.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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

Registered providers, rather than CQC, must determine how to implement detailed standards and good practice for patient safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“exactly registered providers do to meet them; those are things that the registered provider, and the Trust in this context, must determine in order to meet the standards and duties set out in the Regulated Activities Regulations. It is therefore not for CQC to include or prescribe detailed standards and expectations about each specific condition and potential need in our regulatory framework. The CQC through its website signposts Trusts to relevant guidance on how they can meet relevant regulations, including the fundamental standards under the Regulated Activities Regulations. However, under CQC’s regulatory model it is for registered providers, including Trusts, to determine how it will meet and implement good practice standards, including in consultation with third-party expert organisations, as required who produce national guidance and may consult on local guidance.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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.5

  1. 1

    Consider the Trusts’ responses and evidence within regulatory monitoring to determine whether further regulatory action is required.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 July 2023.
  2. 2

    Review the facts and evidence concerning the death to determine whether a criminal offence may have been committed and whether to undertake a formal criminal investigation.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 July 2023.
  3. 3

    Review NHS England’s response to determine whether further discussion or action is needed to address the reported concerns.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 July 2023.
  4. 4

    Discuss Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2023.
  5. 5

    Work with the Royal College of Physicians to expand the audit scope to include head and brain injuries after inpatient falls.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2023.

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

  1. 1

    Transition to NHS England’s new patient-safety reporting system currently limits CQC’s ability to conduct further national analysis.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Consider the Trusts’ responses and evidence within regulatory monitoring to determine whether further regulatory action is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CQC has contacted Stockport NHS Foundation Trust and East Cheshire NHS Trust to request written confirmation and evidence of the action they have taken to date following this death and any additional action they intend to take in response to the prevention of future death report.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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

Review the facts and evidence concerning the death to determine whether a criminal offence may have been committed and whether to undertake a formal criminal investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We also note the legal requirement upon NHS England to respond to your report within 56 days. We will review NHS England’s response to your Regulation 28 report to see whether and what further discussion or action may be required to seek to address the concerns identified in your Regulation 28 report. As you may be aware from 1 April 2015 CQC is the lead enforcement body for health and safety incidents in the health and social care sector. Following the inquest, we are reviewing the facts and evidence in relation to Ms. Nickson’s sad death to determine whether there are grounds to suspect that a criminal offence may have been committed and, whether a formal criminal investigation will be undertaken by the CQC.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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

Review NHS England’s response to determine whether further discussion or action is needed to address the reported concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We also note the legal requirement upon NHS England to respond to your report within 56 days. We will review NHS England’s response to your Regulation 28 report to see whether and what further discussion or action may be required to seek to address the concerns identified in your Regulation 28 report. As you may be aware from 1 April 2015 CQC is the lead enforcement body for health and safety incidents in the health and social care sector. Following the inquest, we are reviewing the facts and evidence in relation to Ms. Nickson’s sad death to determine whether there are grounds to suspect that a criminal offence may have been committed and, whether a formal criminal investigation will be undertaken by the CQC.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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 Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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

Work with the Royal College of Physicians to expand the audit scope to include head and brain injuries after inpatient falls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the management of head/brain injury following an inpatient fall, NHS England has also recently worked with the RCP to inform their successful re-application to the audit tender, the scope of which will now be widened to include such injuries. We anticipate that future learning from the audit results will support further quality improvement initiatives and resources to support providers.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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

Transition to NHS England’s new patient-safety reporting system currently limits CQC’s ability to conduct further national analysis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to our inspection activity, inspectors regularly monitor the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) and Strategic Executive Information System (StEIS), reviewing a Trust’s National Patient Safety Incident Reports and Serious Incident investigations data. Currently these data sources are going through a significant transformation, as NHS England implements the new Learn from Patient Safety Events system, which limits CQC’s ability to carry out further national analysis until this has completed. We recognise there are currently some challenges for CQC in being able to analysis large qualitative datasets, but we are looking at developing methodologies to deal with this, albeit recognising that consistency of information reported by Trusts may be a challenge CQC will need to consider in seeking to make those improvements.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 28 July 2023

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