PFD report

Michael HUGGON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Jul 2024•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
7

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 raised3

  1. Delays in dealing with urgent requests
  2. Failure to provide a rapid and secure handover of unfinished work when practice workload cannot be managed
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processes
  3. Referral to 111 causing delays and undue pressure on the service
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.4

  1. Action

    Disseminate guidance to all GP practices on options for discussing and handing over cases of concern, including standalone communication and website publication.

    Stated by Cumbria Health LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 July 2024.
  2. Action

    Implement Modern General Practice Access, including structured demand assessment, central care navigation and GP review of clinical requests.

    Stated by Carlisle HealthcareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 July 2024.
  3. Action

    Pass triaged cases requiring same-day clinical input after closure directly to Cumbria Health by telephone.

    Stated by Carlisle HealthcareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 July 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Existing information-sharing and clinical handover processes are considered sufficient to mitigate communication risks between healthcare organisations.

    Stated by Cumbria Health LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 dealing with urgent requests

Wider context from the report

“(1) I was told at the hearing that it is now normal practice for any work unfinished by surgery closing time is left to the after hours service and that GPs no longer "call in on the way home". In this case there was no handover and the Huggons had to start their patient journey all over again -with a long delay to even speak to 111. The process was slow and inefficient with multiple doctors on call handlers involved [by my calculation 4 call handlers/receptionists, 1 nurse and 3 doctors]. I was previously aware that many ambulance calls promised by 111 are sent to Cumbria Health for re-triage to try to prioritize resources. The response from Carlisle Healthcare to a request for urgent help was in my view inadequate, however when Cumbria Health were eventually involved their response was timely. I suspect Michael was exhausted and almost beyond caring when he declined admission in the evening, but feel it is most likely that had he been seen and admitted to hospital earlier he could have received a blood transfusion and would not have died. (2) Given the above I am concerned that future deaths may occur if urgent requests are not dealt with more promptly, and that if a practice can not deal with its workload a rapid and secure handover process is put in place. I am also concerned that referral to 111 will continue to bring delays and place undue pressure on that service. ”

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 provide a rapid and secure handover of unfinished work when practice workload cannot be managed

Wider context from the report

“(1) I was told at the hearing that it is now normal practice for any work unfinished by surgery closing time is left to the after hours service and that GPs no longer "call in on the way home". In this case there was no handover and the Huggons had to start their patient journey all over again -with a long delay to even speak to 111. The process was slow and inefficient with multiple doctors on call handlers involved [by my calculation 4 call handlers/receptionists, 1 nurse and 3 doctors]. I was previously aware that many ambulance calls promised by 111 are sent to Cumbria Health for re-triage to try to prioritize resources. The response from Carlisle Healthcare to a request for urgent help was in my view inadequate, however when Cumbria Health were eventually involved their response was timely. I suspect Michael was exhausted and almost beyond caring when he declined admission in the evening, but feel it is most likely that had he been seen and admitted to hospital earlier he could have received a blood transfusion and would not have died. (2) Given the above I am concerned that future deaths may occur if urgent requests are not dealt with more promptly, and that if a practice can not deal with its workload a rapid and secure handover process is put in place. I am also concerned that referral to 111 will continue to bring delays and place undue pressure on that service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical handover 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

Referral to 111 causing delays and undue pressure on the service

Wider context from the report

“(1) I was told at the hearing that it is now normal practice for any work unfinished by surgery closing time is left to the after hours service and that GPs no longer "call in on the way home". In this case there was no handover and the Huggons had to start their patient journey all over again -with a long delay to even speak to 111. The process was slow and inefficient with multiple doctors on call handlers involved [by my calculation 4 call handlers/receptionists, 1 nurse and 3 doctors]. I was previously aware that many ambulance calls promised by 111 are sent to Cumbria Health for re-triage to try to prioritize resources. The response from Carlisle Healthcare to a request for urgent help was in my view inadequate, however when Cumbria Health were eventually involved their response was timely. I suspect Michael was exhausted and almost beyond caring when he declined admission in the evening, but feel it is most likely that had he been seen and admitted to hospital earlier he could have received a blood transfusion and would not have died. (2) Given the above I am concerned that future deaths may occur if urgent requests are not dealt with more promptly, and that if a practice can not deal with its workload a rapid and secure handover process is put in place. I am also concerned that referral to 111 will continue to bring delays and place undue pressure on that service. ”

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

Disseminate guidance to all GP practices on options for discussing and handing over cases of concern, including standalone communication and website publication.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We will ensure that the information in the section above is communicated to the GP practices through all of Cumbria on the options Cumbria Health has for discussing and handing over cases of concern if they are unable to manage them within the constraints of their capacity, particularly at that shoulder time period of when they close and the Cumbria Health opens. This will be achieved by a standalone communication and guidance will be entered onto our newly developed website for ease of access.”

Source location

Response from Cumbria Health
Page 2 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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

Implement Modern General Practice Access, including structured demand assessment, central care navigation and GP review of clinical requests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Carlisle Healthcare implemented “Modern General Practice Access” in June 2023. This aimed to improve patient experience of contacting the surgery, see and understand all expressed patient demand (removing the need to “call back tomorrow”), and respond to that need (to offer the right care with the most appropriate clinician or service in a safe time frame).”

Source location

Response from Carlisle Healthcare
Page 2 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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

Pass triaged cases requiring same-day clinical input after closure directly to Cumbria Health by telephone.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following discussion with Cumbria Health, we have agreed that any cases that have already been triaged and need same day clinical input after we have closed will be passed directly to Cumbria Health via telephone, instead of asking the patient to contact 111. This should improve the patient experience of care and reduce delay in response times.”

Source location

Response from Carlisle Healthcare
Page 4 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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

Implement a performance indicator requiring clinician triage of all acute home-visit requests within 60 minutes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following internal discussion within Carlisle Healthcare we have agreed to implement a performance indicator that all requests for acute home visits will be triaged by a clinician within 60 minutes.”

Source location

Response from Carlisle Healthcare
Page 4 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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 information-sharing and clinical handover processes are considered sufficient to mitigate communication risks between healthcare organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Cumbria Health has for many years had processes in place to allow the exchange of clinical information between organisations that include not only daytime primary care but other organisations such as community nurses, hospice, and secondary care. We are very aware that communication issues are often the cause of situations where things could have gone better for patients and the measures, we already have in place are there to mitigate this risk. We also fully recognise the pressures on daytime practice which include capacity to address all the patient queries that arrive at the practice before the 18.30pm handover to Cumbria Health.”

Source location

Response from Cumbria Health
Page 1 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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

    Discuss the case at the regular clinical forum, focusing on capacity assessment when patients decline admission or treatment.

    Stated by Cumbria Health LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 July 2024.
  2. 2

    Complete a review of the case with Carlisle Healthcare.

    Stated by Cumbria Health LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 July 2024.
  3. 3

    Deliver educational sessions updating clinicians on the Mental Capacity Act and documenting challenging scenarios in patient records.

    Stated by Cumbria Health LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 July 2024.

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

  1. 1

    The practice has not adopted the 25-contact daily limit because it would restrict patient access and increase pressure on overstretched partner services.

    Stated by Carlisle HealthcareUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Discuss the case at the regular clinical forum, focusing on capacity assessment when patients decline admission or treatment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The case will be discussed at our regular clinical forum with the emphasis on assessing capacity when patients decline an admission which was pertinent to Mr Huggon’s case but applies to any patient who declines or refuses treatment.”

Source location

Response from Cumbria Health
Page 2 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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

Complete a review of the case with Carlisle Healthcare.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Cumbria Health has reviewed the case and reflected on the findings you have highlighted. As part of this review, we met with our colleagues from Carlisle Healthcare on the 14 August.”

Source location

Response from Cumbria Health
Page 1 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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

Deliver educational sessions updating clinicians on the Mental Capacity Act and documenting challenging scenarios in patient records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We will put on educational sessions to update our clinicians on the mental capacity act, managing challenging scenarios with particular emphasis on how this is documented in a patient record (which is again pertinent to the case of Mr Huggon)”

Source location

Response from Cumbria Health
Page 2 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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 practice has not adopted the 25-contact daily limit because it would restrict patient access and increase pressure on overstretched partner services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The British Medical Association has published guidance for safe working in general practice.⁴ The BMA recommends no more than 25 substantive patient contacts per GP per day for a GP to deliver safe care. Whilst recognising the BMA guidance, we have not implemented this at Carlisle Healthcare as it would restrict patient access and add additional pressure to our already overstretched health and care partners. Despite this, we try to support our clinicians to work safely but recognise that they frequently go above and beyond their contracted working hours.”

Source location

Response from Carlisle Healthcare
Page 3 · response
Published 30 July 2024

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