PFD report

Stephen Whitehead · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Jun 2018•Manchester North

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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 raised2

  1. Absence of a national safety-netting system for biliary stents
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up
  2. Failure of clinical guidance to define ‘short term’ for biliary stent use
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.1

  1. Action

    Discuss adding stent planning and recall databases to national endoscopy standards key performance indicators and incorporating them into the ISREE programme.

    Stated by British Society Of GastroenterologyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 January 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    The existing definition of “short term” is understood by clinicians, and the relevant NICE recommendations remain appropriate without further clarification.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareDisputes 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

Absence of a national safety-netting system for biliary stents

Wider context from the report

“1. The absence of a national ‘safety-netting’ system (stent registry), akin to that already established for ureteric stents (a web-based registry). There is no equivalent for biliary stents. Without a safety netting system, I am concerned that there is a real risk that patients will remain susceptible to what is medically recognised as the ‘phenomenon of the forgotten biliary stent’, resulting in future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up.

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 clinical guidance to define ‘short term’ for biliary stent use

Wider context from the report

“2. Definition of ‘short-term’ in clinical guidance - during the course of the evidence I heard that National Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones currently indicates that the short term use of endoscopic biliary stents followed by further ERCP (or surgery) is an established and safe management option. However, the guidelines do not provide an operational definition of ‘short term’. It is therefore unclear as to what is ‘safe’ in terms of timeframe. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Discuss adding stent planning and recall databases to national endoscopy standards key performance indicators and incorporating them into the ISREE programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The BSG and JAG are however in discussion concerning adding the use of a stent planning/recall database to the key performance indicators (KPI) within its national standards framework, and incorporating it into the ISREE (Improving Safety and reducing Errors in Endoscopy) programme. This topic will be formally discussed at the BSG Endoscopy Committee in October.”

Source location

2018-0293-Response-by-BSG
Page 3 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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 existing definition of “short term” is understood by clinicians, and the relevant NICE recommendations remain appropriate without further clarification.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On your second matter of concern relating to the definition of ‘short term’ in clinical guidance, my officials have sought the views of NICE.”

Source location

2018-0293-Response-by-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care
Page 2 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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

A national stent registry would not necessarily have prevented the outcome because the apparent shortcomings concerned local care arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This view is supported by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) which points out that in this case there appeared to be an intention to remove the stent but this did not happen due to an administrative”

Source location

2018-0293-Response-by-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care
Page 1 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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

A national stent registry is not required because existing guidance, communication, management-plan recording and proposed safety-net arrangements are considered sufficient.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report was issued to the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and I understand the Society has provided a response. You will therefore be aware that after careful consideration, the Society is of the opinion that a national stent registry is not required, instead pointing to the existing guidance available and the need for clear communication between medical professionals and with the patient, as well as the clear recording of next steps in management plans.”

Source location

2018-0293-Response-by-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care
Page 1 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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

Recording and monitoring biliary stents should be owned by the endoscopy unit that inserted the stent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Database of stents. We completely agree that a clear record of when a stent has been placed, and when this should be removed or changed, is important. We feel this should be within the ownership of the endoscopy unit that has inserted the stent. This may be a formal database or a facility within the electronic endoscopy reporting tool, but should be contemporaneously entered at the time of the ERCP, with a clear plan as to timeframe for patient review/repeat procedure. Crucially the system should allow easy, rapid and demonstrable review of all patients who have undergone stenting within an extended time period.”

Source location

2018-0293-Response-by-BSG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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

A national biliary stent database is not needed because local endoscopy-unit arrangements and communication address the identified shortcomings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After careful consideration, we do not feel that the answer is a national database of biliary stents. This would be unwieldy and require significant additional manpower and infrastructure to police. The vast majority of patients will have their care in one locality and, as suggested in the report, shortcomings in local arrangements of care, including communication between local teams, GP and patient, were the fundamental issues highlighted here. Although the National Endoscopy Database (NED) has now been introduced nationally, it is important to record that this does not allow individual patient tracking, and could not act as a proxy database of biliary stents.”

Source location

2018-0293-Response-by-BSG
Page 3 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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

A national biliary stent database is not pursued because it would be unwieldy and require significant additional manpower and infrastructure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After careful consideration, we do not feel that the answer is a national database of biliary stents. This would be unwieldy and require significant additional manpower and infrastructure to police. The vast majority of patients will have their care in one locality and, as suggested in the report, shortcomings in local arrangements of care, including communication between local teams, GP and patient, were the fundamental issues highlighted here. Although the National Endoscopy Database (NED) has now been introduced nationally, it is important to record that this does not allow individual patient tracking, and could not act as a proxy database of biliary stents.”

Source location

2018-0293-Response-by-BSG
Page 3 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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.1

  1. 1

    Emphasise to endoscopy units and BSG members the need to document stent insertion, removal requirements and review timeframes on every ERCP report.

    Stated by British Society Of GastroenterologyStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 January 2019.

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

Emphasise to endoscopy units and BSG members the need to document stent insertion, removal requirements and review timeframes on every ERCP report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Communication. It is not clear from the details provided whether clear and explicit written information was provided to the patient, GP, and surgical team that a stent had been inserted, the necessity of subsequent removal, and the timeframe for this to happen. In writing to endoscopy units/BSG members we will emphasise the importance of this measure, and the need for a clear directive on every ERCP report which (as is standard) is given to each patient and their doctor.”

Source location

2018-0293-Response-by-BSG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026