PFD report

Delwyn PREECE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Mar 2026•South Yorkshire (Eastern)

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. Failure of patient safety incident investigators to correctly identify retrospective medical record entries
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable traceability of retrospective amendments to safety records
  2. Failure to undertake and document mental state examinations and risk assessments before granting ward leave
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Unreliable assessment of patients’ mental statePart of recurring concern: Unsafe management of inpatient leave and absence
  3. Failure to identify and explain retrospective medical record entries
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable traceability of retrospective amendments to safety records
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 of patient safety incident investigators to correctly identify retrospective medical record entries

Wider context from the report

“3. The Patient Safety Incident Investigation authors were unfamiliar with the medical records system which lead to the retrospective entries not being identified correctly, therefore the investigation did not make any finding. However, with more understanding, it is likely the retrospective entries in the medical records who have been identified and their relevance realised which would have altered the content and findings of the report. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable traceability of retrospective amendments to safety records.

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 undertake and document mental state examinations and risk assessments before granting ward leave

Wider context from the report

“1. There were consistent and repeated incidents (13 incidents in 6 days) where leave from the ward was granted without any documented mental state examination or risk assessment being undertaken prior to the patient being permitted to leave the ward. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Unreliable assessment of patients’ mental state; Unsafe management of inpatient leave and absence.

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 identify and explain retrospective medical record entries

Wider context from the report

“2. There was poor documentation throughout the medical records with entries lacking detail, being added retrospectively (up to two days later) without any explanation or referencing the retrospective nature of the entry. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable traceability of retrospective amendments to safety records.

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 maintain sufficiently detailed medical records

Wider context from the report

“2. There was poor documentation throughout the medical records with entries lacking detail, being added retrospectively (up to two days later) without any explanation or referencing the retrospective nature of the entry. ”

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.