PFD report

Lesley Marie Krommendijk · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Feb 2026•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
1

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure of discharge-safety assessment processes to accurately assess patient mobility
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to assess and meet patients’ mobility needsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
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.3

  1. Position

    There was no discrepancy between the discharge referral information and the patient’s function at discharge, so mobility was not unrealistically represented.

    Stated by Stockport 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 of discharge-safety assessment processes to accurately assess patient mobility

Wider context from the report

“(1) The current processes for assessing whether or not it is safe to discharge a patient appear to have led to an unrealistic impression of the patient’s mobility. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to assess and meet patients’ mobility needs; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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

There was no discrepancy between the discharge referral information and the patient’s function at discharge, so mobility was not unrealistically represented.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Mrs Krommendijk was discharged from Ward D5 as planned into her son’s care. At the time of discharge there was no discrepancy between the information within the referral to D2A and her function at the time.”

Source location

Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 2026

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 discharge planning, equipment provision and continuing mobility reviews were considered appropriate and sufficient under usual practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following a full review of Mrs Krommendijk’s documentation whilst in hospital, during the discharge planning process and following her return to home, her mobility and function was continually reviewed as would be expected with appropriate equipment in place. Though Mrs Krommendijk declined physically following her discharge from hospital, the Divisional team believes her discharge was appropriately planned for and completed within our usual expectations. The D2A and ICAH team communicated with Mrs Krommendijk’s GP throughout this period, ensuring that she had timely interventions as required.”

Source location

Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 2 March 2026

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 discharge information accurately reflected the patient’s function, and the discharge was appropriately planned within usual expectations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Mrs Krommendijk was discharged from Ward D5 as planned into her son’s care. At the time of discharge there was no discrepancy between the information within the referral to D2A and her function at the time.”

Source location

Response from Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 2026

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