PFD report

Philip John UNWIN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Feb 2025•Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised2

  1. Failure to promptly review and escalate deteriorating patients
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deterioration
  2. Failure to provide 1:1 registered nurse staffing in the Emergency Department resuscitation area
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient emergency-department capacity for timely patient carePart of recurring concern: Insufficient emergency-department staffing capacity for safe patient 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.2

  1. Action

    Review and amend policies and procedures for reviewing, escalating and referring deteriorating patients.

    Stated by University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 February 2025.
  2. Action

    Reinstate a named-nurse model in the resuscitation area and audit it through internal and ICB review processes.

    Stated by University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 February 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Flexible nursing allocation is preferred to fixed one-to-one resuscitation staffing because it prioritises staff according to acuity, surge and skill.

    Stated by University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS 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 promptly review and escalate deteriorating patients

Wider context from the report

“Although the conclusion of the inquest was one of Natural Causes there was evidence of a failure for medical teams to respond to concerns that the patient was deteriorating whilst awaiting assessment in the resuscitation area of the Emergency Department of Royal Stoke University Hospital. It was accepted by witnesses from the hospital that the patient should not have deteriorated to a 'moribund' state within that area of the hospital when concerns had been raised by staff and family, and that review and escalation to intensive care should have been initiated sooner (albeit the evidence was that this did not more than minimally contribute to the death). As a result of the concerns raise by hospital staff regarding missed opportunities to escalate care in a timely manner the hospital undertook a Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII). As a result of that investigations a number of recommendations were made with assurances given to the report author that work is being undertaken to review and amend policies and procedures focused on reviewing, escalating and referring deteriorating patients. However, the inquest was told that although the Emergency Department Resuscitation area was where the illest patients were placed awaiting review, staffing levels were not in compliance with national guidance. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) “Nursing Workforce Standards for Type 1 Emergency Departments” (Appendix 5) states “There will be a minimum of Registered Nurse to each patient in the resuscitation area”. The recommendation continued that there should be a named nurse allocated to each patient which should be 1:1 as per National Guidance. The concern is that the current model of staffing within the Emergency Department Resus area is not in compliance with national guidance and the recommendations following internal investigation into the care afforded to the deceased have not been acted upon in this respect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deterioration.

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 1:1 registered nurse staffing in the Emergency Department resuscitation area

Wider context from the report

“Although the conclusion of the inquest was one of Natural Causes there was evidence of a failure for medical teams to respond to concerns that the patient was deteriorating whilst awaiting assessment in the resuscitation area of the Emergency Department of Royal Stoke University Hospital. It was accepted by witnesses from the hospital that the patient should not have deteriorated to a 'moribund' state within that area of the hospital when concerns had been raised by staff and family, and that review and escalation to intensive care should have been initiated sooner (albeit the evidence was that this did not more than minimally contribute to the death). As a result of the concerns raise by hospital staff regarding missed opportunities to escalate care in a timely manner the hospital undertook a Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII). As a result of that investigations a number of recommendations were made with assurances given to the report author that work is being undertaken to review and amend policies and procedures focused on reviewing, escalating and referring deteriorating patients. However, the inquest was told that although the Emergency Department Resuscitation area was where the illest patients were placed awaiting review, staffing levels were not in compliance with national guidance. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) “Nursing Workforce Standards for Type 1 Emergency Departments” (Appendix 5) states “There will be a minimum of Registered Nurse to each patient in the resuscitation area”. The recommendation continued that there should be a named nurse allocated to each patient which should be 1:1 as per National Guidance. The concern is that the current model of staffing within the Emergency Department Resus area is not in compliance with national guidance and the recommendations following internal investigation into the care afforded to the deceased have not been acted upon in this respect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient emergency-department capacity for timely patient care; Insufficient emergency-department staffing capacity for safe patient care.

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

Review and amend policies and procedures for reviewing, escalating and referring deteriorating patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of the concerns raised by hospital staff regarding missed opportunities to escalate care in a timely manner the hospital undertook a Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII). As a result of that investigations a number of recommendations were made with assurances given to the report author that work is being undertaken to review and amend policies and procedures focused on reviewing, escalating and referring deteriorating patients.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 2025

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

Reinstate a named-nurse model in the resuscitation area and audit it through internal and ICB review processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We previously trialled a ‘named nurse’ approach within resus and the team felt this lacked flexibility as they used an ‘allocated nurse’ based on patient need and skill-set per shift but, following further review, we have decided to structure this and reinstate this model to include a ‘named nurse’ within our resus from early April 2025. The named nurse model will then be audited/monitored via our internal review processes and as part of the Integrated Care Board (ICB) reviews of our Emergency Department.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 3 · response
Published 21 February 2025

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

Flexible nursing allocation is preferred to fixed one-to-one resuscitation staffing because it prioritises staff according to acuity, surge and skill.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Royal Stoke Hospital has a Type 1 Emergency Department and has a total of 8 cubicles in the resuscitation (resus) area, however the team try to keep resus at a maximum of 6 patients leaving 1 space for paediatric emergencies (and when in use paediatric nursing staff from Children’s Emergency Department attend), and 1 cubicle space for any trauma patients. There are always 4 Nurses who are allocated to the department for each shift in resus and then the department flexes our nurses to cover all Emergency Department Areas, flexing into the area with the most need at the time.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 2025

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 Trust does not consider that insufficient nursing staff caused the failure to recognise Philip’s deterioration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“UHNM advise that having a Named Nurse in the ED has been tried previously at the Royal Stoke University Hospital, but a ‘team approach’ has been found to work better in the Resuscitation area of the ED rather than care falling to one medical professional. Trauma patients are always nursed 1:1 and this is due to the professional judgement required and the ability to flex staff around the department and into resuscitation with the support of an Operating Department Practitioner (ODP), the (supernumerary) Nurse in Charge and any outreach support for trauma calls. UHNM have asked us to note that the PSII identified that there was clear escalation by relevant nursing staff, and that it is not their belief that a lack of nursing staff led to the failure to recognise Philip’s deterioration.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 2025

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 Trust is responsible for providing further comments and information on actions taken since the inquest concerning the Coroner’s concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is appropriate that UHNM provide any further comment regarding the Coroner’s concerns. It is NHS England’s understanding that they will be providing further information on actions taken by the Trust since the inquest into Philip’s death in their response to the Coroner.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 2025

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

A team approach, supported by flexible staffing and specialist support, is considered more effective than assigning a Named Nurse in the resuscitation area.

Verbatim wording from the response

“UHNM advise that having a Named Nurse in the ED has been tried previously at the Royal Stoke University Hospital, but a ‘team approach’ has been found to work better in the Resuscitation area of the ED rather than care falling to one medical professional. Trauma patients are always nursed 1:1 and this is due to the professional judgement required and the ability to flex staff around the department and into resuscitation with the support of an Operating Department Practitioner (ODP), the (supernumerary) Nurse in Charge and any outreach support for trauma calls. UHNM have asked us to note that the PSII identified that there was clear escalation by relevant nursing staff, and that it is not their belief that a lack of nursing staff led to the failure to recognise Philip’s deterioration.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 2025

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.1

  1. 1

    Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share key learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 February 2025.

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 received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share key learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Philip, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 21 February 2025

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