PFD report

Francis Xavier Cooney · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Aug 2020•Birmingham and Solihull

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
10

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 communicate inpatient medication changes to carers of patients with cognitive impairment
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable implementation of medication changes
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.2

  1. Action

    Reinforce communication with relatives and carers of cognitively impaired patients through medical staff communication and departmental clinical governance meetings.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 October 2020.
  2. Action

    Refresh training across all wards on discharge medication review, communication with relatives or carers, and recording and actioning blister-pack requirements.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 October 2020.

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

  1. Position

    Existing processes are considered sufficient to ensure medication changes are appropriately discussed with patients, relatives or carers at discharge.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustExisting 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

Failure to communicate inpatient medication changes to carers of patients with cognitive impairment

Wider context from the report

“2. For patients with a cognitive impairment there is a risk that if changes to medication made during an inpatient stay are not communicated directly to those caring for them, confusion will arise which could result in the medication being erroneously omitted or overdosed. 3. Dr. ████████ acknowledged that if Mr. Cooney had been a patient on the Geriatric Ward, rather than a plastic surgery patient, she would have communicated the fact and reason for change to Ms. ████████ directly. She said she did not do so in this case because, as a Consultant providing an opinion for a patient under the care of another team, she did not view it as her responsibility. 4. Dr. ████████ said that her practice had now changed, and she would always communicate such a decision to the NOK of a patient with a cognitive impairment. She was also aware that the facts of this case would be raised with other geriatricians within the Trust. However, it was not clear that this awareness will result in consideration of a new instruction/procedure that for all patients with dementia and/or significant cognitive impairment, any changes to medications made during an inpatient stay should be communicated to the NOK/carer by the clinician making the change regardless of the capacity in which they come to be reviewing the patient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable implementation of medication changes.

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

Reinforce communication with relatives and carers of cognitively impaired patients through medical staff communication and departmental clinical governance meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Finally, I will communicate with the medical staff reinforcing the importance of communication with relatives and carers where patients have a cognitive impairment and the learning from this case will be cascaded through departmental clinical governance meetings.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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

Refresh training across all wards on discharge medication review, communication with relatives or carers, and recording and actioning blister-pack requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will be undertaking a refresh of training across all wards on the importance of”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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 processes are considered sufficient to ensure medication changes are appropriately discussed with patients, relatives or carers at discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the decision to reduce the medication was discussed with Mr Cooney, and it was considered at the time that he had understood the information provided, in light of his fluctuating confusion, it is recognised that Mr Cooney’s daughter should have been informed of the changes that had been made and unfortunately this did not happen and this is a matter of regret. We are satisfied that this was an unfortunate individual error and that there are processes in place to ensure discussion as to medications do take place appropriately on the discharge of patients.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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.8

  1. 1

    Share case learning with pharmacy staff across all four sites and reinforce documentation of interventions, proposals, clinical conversations and decisions.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 October 2020.
  2. 2

    Maintain an electronic pharmacy system recording how medication should be provided to patients.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 October 2020.
  3. 3

    Identify suicides occurring within 28 days of discharge and arrange review by the legal team and a named Deputy Medical Director.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 October 2020.
  4. 4

    Establish a dedicated Clinical Portal location for accessible lasting power of attorney records.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 October 2020.
  5. 5

    Continue Trust-wide refresher work on the Mental Capacity Act and protections for patients lacking capacity.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 October 2020.
  6. 6

    Circulate guidance from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nurse reinforcing the required lasting power of attorney process.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 October 2020.
  7. 7

    Develop an action plan to address obtaining and recording Health and Welfare lasting power of attorney documentation.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 October 2020.
  8. 8

    Complete retrospective review of patients requiring blister packs during the preceding 12 months.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 October 2020.

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

  1. 1

    Small medication dose reductions would not, in isolation, be expected to cause the patient's distress.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Share case learning with pharmacy staff across all four sites and reinforce documentation of interventions, proposals, clinical conversations and decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Nevertheless, in light of this incident, our Chief Pharmacist has taken a number of steps to reduce the possibility of a similar incident occurring in the future. An email was forwarded to our pharmacy team (covering all 4 sites) on 18 September 2020 sharing the learning from this case and reinforcing and reminding staff of the current processes that should be followed and that any clinical interventions or proposals, notable clinical conversations or decisions, must be documented.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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

Maintain an electronic pharmacy system recording how medication should be provided to patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Secondly, a review of the process within our pharmacy team has taken place and we are satisfied that we have a robust electronic system to capture how medication should be provided to patients. A retrospective review of patients requiring a blister pack over the past 12 months has been carried out. There have been no similar incidents to the failure in regard to Mr Cooney’s blister pack, but we are reasonably confident this was an isolated incident of human error.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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

Identify suicides occurring within 28 days of discharge and arrange review by the legal team and a named Deputy Medical Director.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The first issue that we have addressed is that the tragic events leading to Mr Cooney’s suicide were not identified as requiring further internal investigation. We have implemented a system where any such event occurring within 28 days of discharge is identified to the Chief Medical Officer. In particular our legal team will work with a named Deputy Medical Director to review the circumstances of the last admission where the cause of death is identified as suicide. We anticipate that this will assist the Coroner and the family in their understanding of relevant events.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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

Establish a dedicated Clinical Portal location for accessible lasting power of attorney records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An action plan to address the failure to obtain a record/copy of the LPA is being developed. A communication from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nurse will be circulated, addressing the importance of the process to follow, which is set out within Trust policy, where an attorney has been appointed under an LPA for Health and Welfare and this will be completed within the next 4 weeks. In addition to the practical step of establishing a specific location for easy access to any LPA on the Clinical Portal component of our electronic healthcare record, we will be emphasising the importance of communication with both patient and family as appropriate. This is in addition to the refresher work being done across the Trust as to all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act and the protections afforded to patients without capacity, either permanent or fluctuating.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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 Trust-wide refresher work on the Mental Capacity Act and protections for patients lacking capacity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An action plan to address the failure to obtain a record/copy of the LPA is being developed. A communication from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nurse will be circulated, addressing the importance of the process to follow, which is set out within Trust policy, where an attorney has been appointed under an LPA for Health and Welfare and this will be completed within the next 4 weeks. In addition to the practical step of establishing a specific location for easy access to any LPA on the Clinical Portal component of our electronic healthcare record, we will be emphasising the importance of communication with both patient and family as appropriate. This is in addition to the refresher work being done across the Trust as to all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act and the protections afforded to patients without capacity, either permanent or fluctuating.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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

Circulate guidance from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nurse reinforcing the required lasting power of attorney process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An action plan to address the failure to obtain a record/copy of the LPA is being developed. A communication from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nurse will be circulated, addressing the importance of the process to follow, which is set out within Trust policy, where an attorney has been appointed under an LPA for Health and Welfare and this will be completed within the next 4 weeks. In addition to the practical step of establishing a specific location for easy access to any LPA on the Clinical Portal component of our electronic healthcare record, we will be emphasising the importance of communication with both patient and family as appropriate. This is in addition to the refresher work being done across the Trust as to all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act and the protections afforded to patients without capacity, either permanent or fluctuating.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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

Develop an action plan to address obtaining and recording Health and Welfare lasting power of attorney documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An action plan to address the failure to obtain a record/copy of the LPA is being developed. A communication from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nurse will be circulated, addressing the importance of the process to follow, which is set out within Trust policy, where an attorney has been appointed under an LPA for Health and Welfare and this will be completed within the next 4 weeks. In addition to the practical step of establishing a specific location for easy access to any LPA on the Clinical Portal component of our electronic healthcare record, we will be emphasising the importance of communication with both patient and family as appropriate. This is in addition to the refresher work being done across the Trust as to all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act and the protections afforded to patients without capacity, either permanent or fluctuating.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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 retrospective review of patients requiring blister packs during the preceding 12 months.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Secondly, a review of the process within our pharmacy team has taken place and we are satisfied that we have a robust electronic system to capture how medication should be provided to patients. A retrospective review of patients requiring a blister pack over the past 12 months has been carried out. There have been no similar incidents to the failure in regard to Mr Cooney’s blister pack, but we are reasonably confident this was an isolated incident of human error.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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

Small medication dose reductions would not, in isolation, be expected to cause the patient's distress.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would not have expected the relatively small changes in medication to have led to Mr Cooney’s distress in isolation but this is on the basis that I would have expected his medication on discharge to have been contained in a blister pack, as it was on admission. A blister pack contains separate sealed compartments for medications to be taken out at particular times of the day and this is of value for patients, such as Mr Cooney, with fluctuating levels of capacity.”

Source location

2020-0154-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-Foundation-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 19 October 2020

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