PFD report

Gordon Bernard Hendley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Jul 2022•Cumbria

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
10

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 raised10

  1. Failure of mortality and harm review to identify the need for a Serious Incident Review
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable accuracy of safety-review findings and conclusionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable morbidity and mortality review processes
  2. Failure to obtain dermatology advice for suspected Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure timely specialist dermatology input for acute severe skin conditions
  3. Failure to act promptly on severe lactic acidosis and hyperkalaemia on the medical ward
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 mortality and harm review to identify the need for a Serious Incident Review

Wider context from the report

“7) I was shown a “Mortality and Harm Review Tool” completed in May which concluded that “care was good and decisions sound”, and that there was no need for a Serious Incident Review. I stated in court that I completely rejected this. I did however note and am pleased that ████████ is producing an educational programme and Standard operating procedure for SJS/TENS. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable accuracy of safety-review findings and conclusions; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes; Unreliable morbidity and mortality review 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 obtain dermatology advice for suspected Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

Wider context from the report

“1) Stevens-Johnson Syndrome is a dermatological emergency with a significant mortality rate (perhaps over 10% in a man of Gordon’s age and frailty), he was referred with this diagnosis by an experienced GP. While evidence suggests a medical consultant was contacted he did not see Gordon himself and I heard no evidence to suggest a dermatologist was consulted for advice. Also the SCORTEN or ABCD-10 prognostic tools were not used, they may have been helpful. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure timely specialist dermatology input for acute severe skin conditions.

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 act promptly on severe lactic acidosis and hyperkalaemia on the medical ward

Wider context from the report

“5) On the medical ward there still seems to be no sense of urgency in Gordon’s treatment. A further blood test at 8.45pm showed severe lactic acidosis and hyperkalaemia but no action seems to have been taken. It was not until the ICU doctor happened upon Gordon just before 11pm, 24 hours after he arrived in the hospital that positive steps were taken. ”

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

Delays in assessment of severely ill patients returning to A&E

Wider context from the report

“2) When Gordon returned to A&E late on 20th January there was an excessive delay in his assessment. His blood test revealed a significant lactic acidosis with marked anaemia and very low white blood counts. The A&E consultant who gave evidence said she would have expected this to be escalated to her -she was on call at home, but it was not. I have inputted the data in medical records to the scoring tools referred to above and mortality predictions have now risen to around 50%. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable management of patients returning to emergency departments soon after discharge.

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 record recognition of the significance of critical blood-test results

Wider context from the report

“3) Gordon had a CT scan, he was referred to medicine but not seen by a medical consultant until 4.30 pm, he was to be admitted to a ward (this happened at 6.30pm) but there is no record in the notes of the significance of the earlier blood test being appreciated. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon; Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests.

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 medical consultant review of patients referred to medicine

Wider context from the report

“3) Gordon had a CT scan, he was referred to medicine but not seen by a medical consultant until 4.30 pm, he was to be admitted to a ward (this happened at 6.30pm) but there is no record in the notes of the significance of the earlier blood test being appreciated. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in consultant review of patients.

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

Severely ill A&E patients without an advocate or support person

Wider context from the report

“6) ████████, Gordon’s wife was not permitted to be with him in A&E due to Covid restrictions. Thus he had no advocate. I have no doubt that had she been there to speak for him care would have been expedited. It is my view that regardless of policy severely ill patients will benefit from support in similar circumstances. ”

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 use SCORTEN or ABCD-10 prognostic tools for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

Wider context from the report

“1) Stevens-Johnson Syndrome is a dermatological emergency with a significant mortality rate (perhaps over 10% in a man of Gordon’s age and frailty), he was referred with this diagnosis by an experienced GP. While evidence suggests a medical consultant was contacted he did not see Gordon himself and I heard no evidence to suggest a dermatologist was consulted for advice. Also the SCORTEN or ABCD-10 prognostic tools were not used, they may have been helpful. ”

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 escalate critical A&E blood-test abnormalities to the senior clinician

Wider context from the report

“2) When Gordon returned to A&E late on 20th January there was an excessive delay in his assessment. His blood test revealed a significant lactic acidosis with marked anaemia and very low white blood counts. The A&E consultant who gave evidence said she would have expected this to be escalated to her -she was on call at home, but it was not. I have inputted the data in medical records to the scoring tools referred to above and mortality predictions have now risen to around 50%. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior clinicians; Failure to provide effective senior clinical oversight of patient care.

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

Lack of a robust A&E intentional-rounding system

Wider context from the report

“4) At the inquest into the death of Nicholas Dietzold (who died in the A&E department) which I heard last September I was assured that a system of “Intentional Rounding” would take place in A&E when a senior doctor and nurse would go round the department to look at patients & assure themselves that appropriate actions were in hand (I am aware the design of the department is less than ideal). The consultant gave evidence assuring me that this did take place but there were no notes to confirm this and I question whether it is a robust system. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable intentional-rounding systems.

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.