PFD report

Janet Rice · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Jul 2024•County Durham and Darlington

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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 raised6

  1. Delays in completing and providing patient safety investigation reports
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable safety investigation reports and disclosure
  2. Insufficient training coverage on capacity and best interests decision making across hospital settings
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable best-interests decision-making processes
  3. Failure of patient safety investigations to comprehensively review anticoagulant omissions across hospital settings
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
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

    Review and update the patient safety investigation report and action plan to cover the patient’s acute and community care.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  2. Action

    Track patient safety investigations at the weekly Senior Clinical Leaders patient safety forum.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 August 2024.

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 completing and providing patient safety investigation reports

Wider context from the report

“(1) The final version of the patient safety investigation report carried out by the Trust was only received on the first day of the Inquest, some 16 months after the death. The concerns raised in this Inquest have been well known to the Trust for a considerable period of time and the concern is that lessons cannot be learned in a timely fashion if patient safety investigations are so significantly delayed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable safety investigation reports and disclosure.

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 training coverage on capacity and best interests decision making across hospital settings

Wider context from the report

“(3) Although evidence was heard in relation to the provision of further training in relation to the issues of capacity and best interests decision making, to address the concerns identified in this investigation this was limited to the community hospital setting, when it is known that the issues continued in the acute hospital setting. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable best-interests decision-making 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

Failure of patient safety investigations to comprehensively review anticoagulant omissions across hospital settings

Wider context from the report

“(2) The patient safety investigation report is not a comprehensive and robust review of the omissions in provision of anti coagulant and does not consider or address the omission to administer anti coagulant because the deceased was transferred between hospitals, nor does it detail all of the incidents of missed anti coagulant, some of which only became apparent upon receipt of the independent expert report. It’s remit and action plan are limited to the community hospital only, and do not consider or address the further instances of omission to administer anti coagulant in the acute hospital setting, where there was a continued failure to carry out a capacity assessment and any subsequent best interests decision making process, failure to escalate these issues, and/or to consider any alternative treatment to reduce the high risk of DVT/PE. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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 carry out capacity assessments and subsequent best interests decision making

Wider context from the report

“(2) The patient safety investigation report is not a comprehensive and robust review of the omissions in provision of anti coagulant and does not consider or address the omission to administer anti coagulant because the deceased was transferred between hospitals, nor does it detail all of the incidents of missed anti coagulant, some of which only became apparent upon receipt of the independent expert report. It’s remit and action plan are limited to the community hospital only, and do not consider or address the further instances of omission to administer anti coagulant in the acute hospital setting, where there was a continued failure to carry out a capacity assessment and any subsequent best interests decision making process, failure to escalate these issues, and/or to consider any alternative treatment to reduce the high risk of DVT/PE. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to recognise impaired decision-making capacity in care decisions; Unreliable assessment and recording of patients’ mental capacity; Unreliable best-interests decision-making 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

Failure to escalate anticoagulant omissions and related capacity issues

Wider context from the report

“(2) The patient safety investigation report is not a comprehensive and robust review of the omissions in provision of anti coagulant and does not consider or address the omission to administer anti coagulant because the deceased was transferred between hospitals, nor does it detail all of the incidents of missed anti coagulant, some of which only became apparent upon receipt of the independent expert report. It’s remit and action plan are limited to the community hospital only, and do not consider or address the further instances of omission to administer anti coagulant in the acute hospital setting, where there was a continued failure to carry out a capacity assessment and any subsequent best interests decision making process, failure to escalate these issues, and/or to consider any alternative treatment to reduce the high risk of DVT/PE. ”

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 consider alternative treatment to reduce DVT/PE risk

Wider context from the report

“(2) The patient safety investigation report is not a comprehensive and robust review of the omissions in provision of anti coagulant and does not consider or address the omission to administer anti coagulant because the deceased was transferred between hospitals, nor does it detail all of the incidents of missed anti coagulant, some of which only became apparent upon receipt of the independent expert report. It’s remit and action plan are limited to the community hospital only, and do not consider or address the further instances of omission to administer anti coagulant in the acute hospital setting, where there was a continued failure to carry out a capacity assessment and any subsequent best interests decision making process, failure to escalate these issues, and/or to consider any alternative treatment to reduce the high risk of DVT/PE. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable DVT diagnosis and management.

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

Review and update the patient safety investigation report and action plan to cover the patient’s acute and community care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The patient safety investigation report is not a comprehensive and robust review of the omissions in provision of anti-coagulant and does not consider or address the omission to administer anti-coagulant because the deceased was transferred between hospitals, nor does it detail all of the incidents of missed anti-coagulant, some of which only became apparent upon receipt of the independent expert report. It’s remit and action plan are limited to the community hospital only, and do not consider or address the further instances of omission to administer anti-coagulant in the acute hospital setting, where there was a continued failure to carry out a capacity assessment and any subsequent best interests decision making process, failure to escalate these issues, and/or to consider any alternative treatment to reduce the high risk of DVT/PE.”

Source location

Response from Durham and Darlington NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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

Track patient safety investigations at the weekly Senior Clinical Leaders patient safety forum.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has robust processes in place in relation to the investigation of any patient safety incidents identified. When the Trust were made aware that there were patient safety concerns relating to Janet’s care, in April 2024, a review commenced of her care led by one of the Community matrons. The time taken to conclude and ensure the report had progressed through the appropriate Trust governance resulted in the report not being available to yourself until the morning of the inquest. However we recognise that this was not an acceptable timeframe to enable you to properly review the report. Whilst the progress of patient safety investigations have always been tracked by the corporate patient safety team, additional processes have now been established whereby these cases are tracked at the weekly Friday Senior Clinical Leaders patient safety forum.”

Source location

Response from Durham and Darlington NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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

    Share learning from the case at the acute-site Quality and Safety huddle.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  2. 2

    Provide pharmacy attendance at the Sister’s Away Day to raise awareness of the Critical Medications list across acute and community services.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  3. 3

    Develop and submit new community visiting times and information posters for approval.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  4. 4

    Order carers passports for community patients.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  5. 5

    Improve documentation of medication refusals and escalation steps in community clinical records.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 August 2024.

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

Share learning from the case at the acute-site Quality and Safety huddle.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Share learning from the case at Quality and Safety huddle for wider learning (Acute site). | ████████ | 14/9/24 Complete | UEC and medicine Care Group | 14/9/24 Complete”

Source location

Response from Durham and Darlington NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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 pharmacy attendance at the Sister’s Away Day to raise awareness of the Critical Medications list across acute and community services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Pharmacy attendance at Sister’s Away Day to raise awareness of Critical Medications list. (Covers Acute and Community). | ████████ | 30/9/24 Complete | Pharmacy Governance | 30/9/24 Complete”

Source location

Response from Durham and Darlington NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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

Develop and submit new community visiting times and information posters for approval.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Carers passports and open visiting (Community). | ████████ | 31/7/24 Complete | Passports ordered. New visiting times and information poster developed and sent for approval. | 31/8/24 Complete”

Source location

Response from Durham and Darlington NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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

Order carers passports for community patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Carers passports and open visiting (Community). | ████████ | 31/7/24 Complete | Passports ordered. New visiting times and information poster developed and sent for approval. | 31/8/24 Complete”

Source location

Response from Durham and Darlington NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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

Improve documentation of medication refusals and escalation steps in community clinical records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Area for improvement 1: Missed doses of Enoxaparin”

Source location

Response from Durham and Darlington NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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