PFD report

Kellum Paul Thomas · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Aug 2022•Nottinghamshire

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised4

  1. Delays in sending outpatient letters containing important clinical information
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical correspondence from healthcare services to GPsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
  2. Failure to robustly manage the list of children waiting for replacement devices
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable management of clinical waiting lists
  3. Delays in REVEAL device replacement
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

Delays in sending outpatient letters containing important clinical information

Wider context from the report

“2. Kellum’s outpatient letter from ████████ to both the GP and to Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (where shared care was provided) was very delayed, with the outpatient appointment completed in March 21, and the letter not reaching its destinations until mid June 21, after Kellums death. This letter contained important information re a change in medication dosage and a request for NUH to arrange a further investigation. Again this issue appeared to be one of team capacity and resources. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical correspondence from healthcare services to GPs; Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPs; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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 robustly manage the list of children waiting for replacement devices

Wider context from the report

“1. Kellum was without a REVEAL device to monitor his heart rate and rhythm for an 18 month period, despite this being an agreed necessary part of his treatment. The evidence from ████████, Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist, was that there was no robust system for clearly identifying when a battery within a REVEAL device, came to the end of its life, nor was there a robust system for managing the list of children waiting for a replacement device. Also that the waiting list for a device change was excessively long (over 12 months for urgent cases, and longer for those less urgent). Also that capacity and resources were very stretched as the Specialist Paediatric Cardiology team dealing with these issues, was small, and covering both East and West Midlands. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable management of clinical waiting lists.

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 REVEAL device replacement

Wider context from the report

“1. Kellum was without a REVEAL device to monitor his heart rate and rhythm for an 18 month period, despite this being an agreed necessary part of his treatment. The evidence from ████████, Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist, was that there was no robust system for clearly identifying when a battery within a REVEAL device, came to the end of its life, nor was there a robust system for managing the list of children waiting for a replacement device. Also that the waiting list for a device change was excessively long (over 12 months for urgent cases, and longer for those less urgent). Also that capacity and resources were very stretched as the Specialist Paediatric Cardiology team dealing with these issues, was small, and covering both East and West Midlands. ”

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 clearly identify REVEAL device battery end of life

Wider context from the report

“1. Kellum was without a REVEAL device to monitor his heart rate and rhythm for an 18 month period, despite this being an agreed necessary part of his treatment. The evidence from ████████, Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist, was that there was no robust system for clearly identifying when a battery within a REVEAL device, came to the end of its life, nor was there a robust system for managing the list of children waiting for a replacement device. Also that the waiting list for a device change was excessively long (over 12 months for urgent cases, and longer for those less urgent). Also that capacity and resources were very stretched as the Specialist Paediatric Cardiology team dealing with these issues, was small, and covering both East and West Midlands. ”

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

Official responses located
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.