PFD report

Philip Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Dec 2020•Manchester South

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
4

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 raised6

  1. Failure to recognise dehydration risk
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to dehydration
  2. Limited care-home staff ability to recognise and respond to escalating dehydration risk
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to dehydrationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recognition and response to illness in care-home residents
  3. National pathfinder tool failing to clearly direct immediate expedited hospital transfer for sepsis
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsisPart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency access to hospital care
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

    Ensure appropriate checks that the GP carries basic equipment and updates records at consultation where possible.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 January 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    The choice of clinical triage tool remains the responsibility of individual ambulance services rather than being mandated nationally.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 recognise dehydration risk

Wider context from the report

“1. Mr Taylor was seen by a GP the day before he died. His risk of dehydration was not recognised. The precise observations of the GP were difficult to ascertain at the inquest for a number of reasons. • The inquest was told that the GP had been called as the care home had concerns about Mr Taylor. However, the GP did not ascertain his temperature because the inquest was told that he did not routinely carry or use a thermometer when he saw patients in a care home. The explanation provided to the inquest was that as a GP he did was not equipped with medical gadgets in the way for example NWAS staff were. • The notes relating to the visit had not been written up until the next day and the GP could not recall all of any observations. It was unclear why that had occurred. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to dehydration.

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

Limited care-home staff ability to recognise and respond to escalating dehydration risk

Wider context from the report

“3. The staff in the care home were not medically qualified. The inquest heard that their ability to recognise and respond to an escalating risk of dehydration was limited. There was no national guidance to assist care home staff in understanding how to recognise; respond and escalate the risk of dehydration. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to dehydration; Unreliable recognition and response to illness in care-home residents.

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

National pathfinder tool failing to clearly direct immediate expedited hospital transfer for sepsis

Wider context from the report

“2. The paramedic attending was a newly qualified paramedic and as a result was using the national pathfinder tool. Mr Taylor was scoring for sepsis on the NWAS observations. However, the crew took well over an hour to leave the care home. The inquest heard that newly qualified paramedics relied on the national pathfinder tool which did not make it clear the need for an immediate expedited transfer to hospital in such circumstances. More experienced paramedics used the Manchester triage tool which was far more explicit. The inquest was told that NWAS had recognised the issue with the national tool and were adjusting their practices to avoid the risk. However, it was not clear if other Ambulance Trusts had made similar adjustments for newly qualified paramedics. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis; Unreliable emergency access to hospital 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

Delays and omissions in recording GP visit observations

Wider context from the report

“1. Mr Taylor was seen by a GP the day before he died. His risk of dehydration was not recognised. The precise observations of the GP were difficult to ascertain at the inquest for a number of reasons. • The inquest was told that the GP had been called as the care home had concerns about Mr Taylor. However, the GP did not ascertain his temperature because the inquest was told that he did not routinely carry or use a thermometer when he saw patients in a care home. The explanation provided to the inquest was that as a GP he did was not equipped with medical gadgets in the way for example NWAS staff were. • The notes relating to the visit had not been written up until the next day and the GP could not recall all of any observations. It was unclear why that had occurred. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custody.

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 national guidance for care-home staff on recognising, responding to and escalating dehydration risk

Wider context from the report

“3. The staff in the care home were not medically qualified. The inquest heard that their ability to recognise and respond to an escalating risk of dehydration was limited. There was no national guidance to assist care home staff in understanding how to recognise; respond and escalate the risk of dehydration. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to dehydration.

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 ascertain temperature during care-home GP assessments

Wider context from the report

“1. Mr Taylor was seen by a GP the day before he died. His risk of dehydration was not recognised. The precise observations of the GP were difficult to ascertain at the inquest for a number of reasons. • The inquest was told that the GP had been called as the care home had concerns about Mr Taylor. However, the GP did not ascertain his temperature because the inquest was told that he did not routinely carry or use a thermometer when he saw patients in a care home. The explanation provided to the inquest was that as a GP he did was not equipped with medical gadgets in the way for example NWAS staff were. • The notes relating to the visit had not been written up until the next day and the GP could not recall all of any observations. It was unclear why that had occurred. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable measurement of vital signs during clinical assessments.

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

Ensure appropriate checks that the GP carries basic equipment and updates records at consultation where possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am mindful that steps taken now cannot undo what happened in this case, and I am satisfied that from a clinical perspective, the failure to carry equipment / update records did not impact on the outcome for this gentleman. However my expectation is that all Stockport GPs do carry basic equipment to enable the recording of clinical observations and for patient records to be updated at the point of consultation, wherever possible. I am sorry that this did not happen in this case and I will ensure that appropriate checks are made to ensure that Dr ████████ adheres to this standard of practice.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-NHS-Stockport-CCG-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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 choice of clinical triage tool remains the responsibility of individual ambulance services rather than being mandated nationally.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am advised by the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) that Pathfinder is a clinical presentation-based, triage tool based on the Manchester Triage System, which is used worldwide by emergency clinicians and by a number of ambulance services in the UK. It may be helpful to clarify that Pathfinder is not mandated for use nationally and it remains a decision for individual ambulance services as to which clinical triage tools they use.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-Dept.-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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

Further national dehydration guidance is not considered necessary because appropriate guidance and best-practice materials already exist.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the national guidance that is available to care home staff on recognising and responding to the risk of dehydration, I am advised that in its response to you, the CQC has provided a detailed explanation of the guidance and best practice materials that are available. I will not repeat the detail here. However, you may wish to note that Departmental officials have made enquiries with NICE, which has confirmed that appropriate guidance is available, issued by NICE itself and others.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-Dept.-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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

No Pathfinder changes are considered necessary because the tool remains a safe and effective assessment and triage tool.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am assured by the NWAS that having considered the concerns you have raised carefully, it believes that changes are not required as a result of this incident and that Pathfinder remains a safe and effective assessment triage tool.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-Dept.-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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

Existing website information and links to authoritative guidance provide providers with the information needed to support service users’ hydration needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Information on the CQC website to signpost providers on meeting Regulation 14 is available. This includes links to a variety of best practice guidance including Diet, nutrition and obesity (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) which is deemed relevant to all service providers. Other specific guidance to adult social care service included links to BAPEN (British Association for Parenteral & Enteral Nutrition): BAPEN: Malnutrition universal screening tool; Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) explanatory booklet; Nutrition for specific groups (Royal College of Nursing); Nutrition support in adults (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence); Nutrition support in adults (NICE); Nutritional care and older people (Social Care Institute for Excellence, March 2009).”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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 review found insufficient evidence of regulatory breaches, with appropriate nutrition and hydration care plans, monitoring records and assessments in place.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The death of Mr Taylor was reviewed as part of our regulatory duties, to assess whether there was any evidence of failings by a Registered Person that amounted to a breach of the Regulations. The conclusion of the initial review found that there was insufficient evidence of a breach of the Regulations. Mr Taylor had a nutrition and hydration care plan in place, along with a variety of other appropriate and relevant care plans. These were being reviewed on a monthly basis. An assessment of Mr Taylor’s nutrition needs had also been recently reviewed in December 2019. Daily records were being completed and included food and fluid charts. The latter records both food offered and fluid taken by Mr Taylor, which would have assisted with auditing to ensure appropriate fluid levels were maintained. The meal chart is a similar mechanism for ensuring appropriate food intake.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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

Publishing detailed standards for specific conditions falls outside the regulator’s remit because authoritative expert organisations provide that guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CQC does not publish detailed standards and expectations about specific conditions. To do so would duplicate the work of more appropriate expert sources (for example NICE and SCIE - see below). We expect Registered Persons to keep up to date with, take on board and implement good practice standards provided by relevant authoritative organisations.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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 failure to carry equipment and update records did not impact the patient's outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am mindful that steps taken now cannot undo what happened in this case, and I am satisfied that from a clinical perspective, the failure to carry equipment / update records did not impact on the outcome for this gentleman. However my expectation is that all Stockport GPs do carry basic equipment to enable the recording of clinical observations and for patient records to be updated at the point of consultation, wherever possible. I am sorry that this did not happen in this case and I will ensure that appropriate checks are made to ensure that Dr ████████ adheres to this standard of practice.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-NHS-Stockport-CCG-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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.3

  1. 1

    Bring the Prevention of Future Deaths report to NHS England and NHS Improvement’s attention.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 7 January 2021.
  2. 2

    Continue monitoring Bamford Close and liaising with the local authority to review ongoing risks and feedback.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 January 2021.
  3. 3

    Continue reviewing regulated services’ safety systems and processes through inspection and challenge unsafe care where identified.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 January 2021.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Deciding what improvements to implement is the responsibility of the provider and registered manager, not the regulator.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Bring the Prevention of Future Deaths report to NHS England and NHS Improvement’s attention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am assured that progress is being closely monitored by the Trust Board and the CQC. Furthermore, I am informed that the issues at Stockport NHS Foundation Trust have been escalated within NHSEI national governance structures, including to the Executive Quality Group (EQG), chaired by ████████, National Medical Director, and ████████, Chief Nursing Officer, and the Joint Strategic Oversight Group with senior representation from the CQC, where progress is regularly monitored. I have asked my officials to bring your report to the attention of NHSEI.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-Dept.-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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

Continue monitoring Bamford Close and liaising with the local authority to review ongoing risks and feedback.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to ensure that that this risk is minimised to the lowest possible level and to ensure service users are not placed at risk at Bamford Close, we are continually monitoring the service and liaising with the local authority to review any ongoing risks and feedback.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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

Continue reviewing regulated services’ safety systems and processes through inspection and challenge unsafe care where identified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In summary, the requirement is placed on Registered Persons to ensure that they are delivering care in a safe and effective way and doing all that is practicable to mitigate any risks. CQC will continue to review through its inspection processes the systems and processes being operated by those services it regulates and will challenge and, if appropriate, take enforcement action against a Registered Person where it finds that care is being provided in an unsafe way.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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

Deciding what improvements to implement is the responsibility of the provider and registered manager, not the regulator.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In accordance with CQC’s regulatory remit, as with other regulators, we highlight breaches of the regulations to a Provider and where appropriate ask them what they are going to do to make improvements. We do not tell them what they should do. That is for the Provider and/or Registered Manager (both being Registered Persons for CQC purposes) to decide.”

Source location

2020-0289-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026