PFD report

Michael Barry Richardson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Mar 2015•Norfolk

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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 raised1

  1. Failure to review admission records and follow up relevant information
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 review admission records and follow up relevant information

Wider context from the report

“There was within Mr Richardson's records an ambulance crew report which recorded that Mr Richardson was said to have not eaten for 5 days. In evidence before me it was confirmed that the ambulance report would have been available to the person who undertook the MUST screen. It also appeared that this may not have been reviewed at the time. If it had been reviewed the evidence given before me was to the effect that the information might have led to a MUST score of 2 which would in turn have led to a referral to dietician services. Although the expert evidence was that Mr Richardson's nutrition did not play a material part in his death, I am nevertheless concerned that in different circumstances a failure to follow up information or review the ambulance record and/or any other records with which a patient is admitted and so miss the information could affect the outcome for the patient and that there is therefore a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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.2

  1. 1

    Develop an action plan addressing identified weaknesses in MUST nutritional-risk assessments.

    Stated by James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2015.
  2. 2

    Monitor the action plan through the Trust’s Patient Safety and Effectiveness Committee.

    Stated by James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 March 2015.

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 an action plan addressing identified weaknesses in MUST nutritional-risk assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have considered the issues you raised with regard to MUST risks assessments to assess nutritional status and we have developed an action plan to address the weaknesses identified. I have attached a copy of this action plan, which includes the actions we have already taken and those we have yet to take, including timescales and responsibilities. This action plan will be monitored by the Trust's Patient Safety and Effectiveness Committee, chaired by the Director of Nursing, Quality and Patient Experience.”

Source location

2015-0114-Response-by-James-Paget-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2015

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

Monitor the action plan through the Trust’s Patient Safety and Effectiveness Committee.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have considered the issues you raised with regard to MUST risks assessments to assess nutritional status and we have developed an action plan to address the weaknesses identified. I have attached a copy of this action plan, which includes the actions we have already taken and those we have yet to take, including timescales and responsibilities. This action plan will be monitored by the Trust's Patient Safety and Effectiveness Committee, chaired by the Director of Nursing, Quality and Patient Experience.”

Source location

2015-0114-Response-by-James-Paget-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2015

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