Stuart Clarke · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Nov 2019•Manchester City

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
4

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

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. Lack of national referral guidelines for patients with known valvular disease

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. British Cardiovascular Intervention Society

    Publish an updated TAVI service specification defining quality criteria, including training, hospital volumes, length of stay, data collection, waiting times and local audit.

  2. British Cardiovascular Intervention Society

    Contact members and ask them to review local referral pathways to expedite TAVI treatment and prevent delays.

  3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

    Highlight the reported referral concerns to the guideline developers for consideration in specifying referral urgency factors.

  4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

    Develop a clinical guideline on adult heart valve disease, including indications for referral and TAVI.

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

  1. Department of Health and Social Care

    Existing NICE guidance and clinical judgement are considered sufficient to determine the timing of specialist assessment and intervention.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. Department of Health and Social Care

    Responsibility for providing Greater Manchester TAVI services rests with the relevant NHS acute trust, overseen by NHS England as commissioner.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

    The guideline is unlikely to cover secondary-to-tertiary pathways because TAVI is commissioned by NHS England.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

    Trusts are responsible for organising timely referral services, with oversight from specialist commissioners in NHS England.

    Redirects 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

Lack of national referral guidelines for patients with known valvular disease

Wider context from the report

“However, I was concerned that there remain no national guidelines for referral from primary care to secondary care and/or from secondary care to tertiary care for patients with known valvular disease. ”

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

Publish an updated TAVI service specification defining quality criteria, including training, hospital volumes, length of stay, data collection, waiting times and local audit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our professional society has published an updated service specification for TAVI this year (enclosed). In this document we outline the essential criteria for hospitals to provide a high quality TAVI service. These include detailed recommendations about training, hospital volumes, length of stay and national data collection. In particular we recommend a maximum waiting time of 18 weeks between initial referral and treatment and local audit of waiting times.”

Source location

2019-0366-Response-from-BCIS_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 December 2019

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

Contact members and ask them to review local referral pathways to expedite TAVI treatment and prevent delays.

Verbatim wording from the response

“BCIS would support the Department of Health and NHS England in moves to ensure that there is adequate capacity for TAVI candidates to be seen, investigated and treated without undue delay. In addition, we will contact our members to ask them to review local referral pathways to expedite treatment and prevent delays.”

Source location

2019-0366-Response-from-BCIS_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 December 2019

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

Highlight the reported referral concerns to the guideline developers for consideration in specifying referral urgency factors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Details of the concerns you have raised have been highlighted to the guideline developers, so they can consider indicating which factors merit more and less urgent referral, where the evidence is available.”

Source location

2019-0366-Response-from-NICE
Page 2 · response
Published 9 December 2019

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 a clinical guideline on adult heart valve disease, including indications for referral and TAVI.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NICE is at the early stages of developing a clinical guideline on heart valve disease presenting in adults: investigation and management. One of the issues to be covered by this guideline are the indications for patient referral from primary care to a specialist. The draft guidance is expected to go out for consultation with stakeholders in November 2020, and we expect to publish our final guideline to the NHS on 20 May 2021.”

Source location

2019-0366-Response-from-NICE
Page 2 · response
Published 9 December 2019

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 NICE guidance and clinical judgement are considered sufficient to determine the timing of specialist assessment and intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You issued your report to NHS England and NHS Improvement and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). You will therefore be aware from their responses that existing NICE guidance on chronic heart failure¹, issued in 2018, does not specify a time in which patients with chronic heart failure ought to be seen by a heart failure specialist. The timing of any intervention is a matter of clinical judgement and services should be arranged to support the provision of timely and appropriate clinical care.”

Source location

2019-0366-Response-from-DHSC-1
Page 1 · response
Published 9 December 2019

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

Responsibility for providing Greater Manchester TAVI services rests with the relevant NHS acute trust, overseen by NHS England as commissioner.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The provision of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) services in Greater Manchester is a matter for the relevant NHS acute trust, with oversight from NHS England as the commissioner of specialised services. It is for the NHS in Greater Manchester to”

Source location

2019-0366-Response-from-DHSC-1
Page 1 · response
Published 9 December 2019

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 guideline is unlikely to cover secondary-to-tertiary pathways because TAVI is commissioned by NHS England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This guideline will also be considering the indications for TAVI, and its clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. However, we are unlikely to cover issues relating to the patient pathway from secondary to tertiary care, as TAVI is commissioned by NHS England (as outlined within their publication titled ‘Clinical Commissioning Policy Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) For Aortic Stenosis’).”

Source location

2019-0366-Response-from-NICE
Page 2 · response
Published 9 December 2019

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

Trusts are responsible for organising timely referral services, with oversight from specialist commissioners in NHS England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ultimately, we consider the degree of urgency would be a matter for clinical judgement and will depend on the individual clinical scenario. It is important that services are organised in such a way to respond appropriately to clinical scenarios to allow progression through the pathway in an appropriate and timely way. The organisation of such services would be the responsibility of the Trust, with oversight from the specialist commissioner (NHS England).”

Source location

2019-0366-Response-from-NICE
Page 2 · response
Published 9 December 2019

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
4/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026