PFD report

Rita Elizabeth GILES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Jul 2018•Brighton and Hove

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

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 raised7

  1. Failure to recognise the urgency of treatment for septic patients
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsisPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deterioration
  2. Delays in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
  3. Insufficient ERCP capacity for urgent requirements
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely access to urgent and out-of-hours endoscopy
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 recognise the urgency of treatment for septic patients

Wider context from the report

“(1) Unnecessary transfers to and from the Princess Royal Hospital with no supporting paperwork. (2) The Trust’s own Transfer Policy not adhered too in any respect. (3) Delay in her endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP until she was so ill that it needed to be done on the CEPOD list under general anaesthetic and required ICU support. This lady never recovered from this procedure and died a few days later. (4) At Inquest it was explained to me that there are only three people in the Trust that can carry out ERCP work, they have one list each a week, lists are only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The lists seem to be booked well in advance so there is little or no resource for the patient who comes in as Miss Giles did with an urgent requirement. There was a failure to appreciate that as she was already septic when she came in the matter was urgent. From the Inquest it appeared that the Princess Royal Hospital was not the right place for her to be, there is argument to suggest that she should have been transferred early to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton and presumably if she needed urgent treatment she could have had it. Surely, the lists are designed to accommodate the patients not the other way round. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis; Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deterioration.

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

Delays in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Wider context from the report

“(1) Unnecessary transfers to and from the Princess Royal Hospital with no supporting paperwork. (2) The Trust’s own Transfer Policy not adhered too in any respect. (3) Delay in her endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP until she was so ill that it needed to be done on the CEPOD list under general anaesthetic and required ICU support. This lady never recovered from this procedure and died a few days later. (4) At Inquest it was explained to me that there are only three people in the Trust that can carry out ERCP work, they have one list each a week, lists are only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The lists seem to be booked well in advance so there is little or no resource for the patient who comes in as Miss Giles did with an urgent requirement. There was a failure to appreciate that as she was already septic when she came in the matter was urgent. From the Inquest it appeared that the Princess Royal Hospital was not the right place for her to be, there is argument to suggest that she should have been transferred early to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton and presumably if she needed urgent treatment she could have had it. Surely, the lists are designed to accommodate the patients not the other way round. ”

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

Insufficient ERCP capacity for urgent requirements

Wider context from the report

“(1) Unnecessary transfers to and from the Princess Royal Hospital with no supporting paperwork. (2) The Trust’s own Transfer Policy not adhered too in any respect. (3) Delay in her endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP until she was so ill that it needed to be done on the CEPOD list under general anaesthetic and required ICU support. This lady never recovered from this procedure and died a few days later. (4) At Inquest it was explained to me that there are only three people in the Trust that can carry out ERCP work, they have one list each a week, lists are only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The lists seem to be booked well in advance so there is little or no resource for the patient who comes in as Miss Giles did with an urgent requirement. There was a failure to appreciate that as she was already septic when she came in the matter was urgent. From the Inquest it appeared that the Princess Royal Hospital was not the right place for her to be, there is argument to suggest that she should have been transferred early to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton and presumably if she needed urgent treatment she could have had it. Surely, the lists are designed to accommodate the patients not the other way round. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely access to urgent and out-of-hours endoscopy.

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 arrange early transfer to an appropriate specialist hospital

Wider context from the report

“(1) Unnecessary transfers to and from the Princess Royal Hospital with no supporting paperwork. (2) The Trust’s own Transfer Policy not adhered too in any respect. (3) Delay in her endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP until she was so ill that it needed to be done on the CEPOD list under general anaesthetic and required ICU support. This lady never recovered from this procedure and died a few days later. (4) At Inquest it was explained to me that there are only three people in the Trust that can carry out ERCP work, they have one list each a week, lists are only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The lists seem to be booked well in advance so there is little or no resource for the patient who comes in as Miss Giles did with an urgent requirement. There was a failure to appreciate that as she was already septic when she came in the matter was urgent. From the Inquest it appeared that the Princess Royal Hospital was not the right place for her to be, there is argument to suggest that she should have been transferred early to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton and presumably if she needed urgent treatment she could have had it. Surely, the lists are designed to accommodate the patients not the other way round. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure timely transfer to an appropriate hospital care environment; Inadequate coordination between hospitals during patient care; Unreliable hospital destination selection for patient transfers.

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 adhere to the Trust’s Transfer Policy

Wider context from the report

“(1) Unnecessary transfers to and from the Princess Royal Hospital with no supporting paperwork. (2) The Trust’s own Transfer Policy not adhered too in any respect. (3) Delay in her endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP until she was so ill that it needed to be done on the CEPOD list under general anaesthetic and required ICU support. This lady never recovered from this procedure and died a few days later. (4) At Inquest it was explained to me that there are only three people in the Trust that can carry out ERCP work, they have one list each a week, lists are only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The lists seem to be booked well in advance so there is little or no resource for the patient who comes in as Miss Giles did with an urgent requirement. There was a failure to appreciate that as she was already septic when she came in the matter was urgent. From the Inquest it appeared that the Princess Royal Hospital was not the right place for her to be, there is argument to suggest that she should have been transferred early to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton and presumably if she needed urgent treatment she could have had it. Surely, the lists are designed to accommodate the patients not the other way round. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable healthcare patient transfer 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

Lack of supporting paperwork for patient transfers

Wider context from the report

“(1) Unnecessary transfers to and from the Princess Royal Hospital with no supporting paperwork. (2) The Trust’s own Transfer Policy not adhered too in any respect. (3) Delay in her endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP until she was so ill that it needed to be done on the CEPOD list under general anaesthetic and required ICU support. This lady never recovered from this procedure and died a few days later. (4) At Inquest it was explained to me that there are only three people in the Trust that can carry out ERCP work, they have one list each a week, lists are only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The lists seem to be booked well in advance so there is little or no resource for the patient who comes in as Miss Giles did with an urgent requirement. There was a failure to appreciate that as she was already septic when she came in the matter was urgent. From the Inquest it appeared that the Princess Royal Hospital was not the right place for her to be, there is argument to suggest that she should have been transferred early to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton and presumably if she needed urgent treatment she could have had it. Surely, the lists are designed to accommodate the patients not the other way round. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable healthcare patient transfer 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

Unnecessary transfers to and from the Princess Royal Hospital

Wider context from the report

“(1) Unnecessary transfers to and from the Princess Royal Hospital with no supporting paperwork. (2) The Trust’s own Transfer Policy not adhered too in any respect. (3) Delay in her endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP until she was so ill that it needed to be done on the CEPOD list under general anaesthetic and required ICU support. This lady never recovered from this procedure and died a few days later. (4) At Inquest it was explained to me that there are only three people in the Trust that can carry out ERCP work, they have one list each a week, lists are only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The lists seem to be booked well in advance so there is little or no resource for the patient who comes in as Miss Giles did with an urgent requirement. There was a failure to appreciate that as she was already septic when she came in the matter was urgent. From the Inquest it appeared that the Princess Royal Hospital was not the right place for her to be, there is argument to suggest that she should have been transferred early to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton and presumably if she needed urgent treatment she could have had it. Surely, the lists are designed to accommodate the patients not the other way round. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report
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