PFD report

John Dickinson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Jul 2021•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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 raised7

  1. Failure to check food records before assessing food refusal
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisions
  2. Inconsistent and insufficiently detailed recording of general wellbeing
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  3. Failure to create a plan for monitoring fluid and food intake
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably monitor patient fluid balancePart of recurring concern: Inadequate management of patients' nutrition and hydration needs
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    A formal investigation was not commenced because the apparent recording failures were individual and likely concerned people outside enforcement powers.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 check food records before assessing food refusal

Wider context from the report

“(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisions.

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

Inconsistent and insufficiently detailed recording of general wellbeing

Wider context from the report

“(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 create a plan for monitoring fluid and food intake

Wider context from the report

“(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably monitor patient fluid balance; Inadequate management of patients' nutrition and hydration needs.

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

Delay in assessing deterioration

Wider context from the report

“(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”

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 record GP advice communicated at handover

Wider context from the report

“(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”

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 place an instruction in the room to prompt monitoring

Wider context from the report

“(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably monitor patient fluid balance.

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 a single document providing a holistic view of the person

Wider context from the report

“(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

Open source report

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 formal investigation was not commenced because the apparent recording failures were individual and likely concerned people outside enforcement powers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In line with CQC’s regulatory responsibilities, we continue to monitor statutory notifications and enquiries related with this service. Having considered the evidence and information available in this case, we have made the decision not to commence a formal Registered Provider investigation into Mr Dickinson’s death. Whilst we acknowledge there were some apparent failures in the recording of care,”

Source location

2021-0310-Response-from-CQC_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 17 September 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.2

  1. 1

    Share the action plan with the Care Quality Commission.

    Stated by Bluebell Care Services LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 September 2021.
  2. 2

    Complete a focused inspection of the home’s infection-control policies and procedures.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 September 2021.

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 the action plan with the Care Quality Commission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have shared our action plan with ████████ at the Care Quality Commission.”

Source location

2021-0310-Response-from-Sunnyside-Nursing-Home_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 17 September 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

Complete a focused inspection of the home’s infection-control policies and procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have since visited the home again on the 20 August 2020, to complete an inspection focused on the safety of the Infection Control policies and procedures carried out at the home and we did not find any concerns. For further information about our inspection’s findings, please read the full reports here: https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-138395988/reports or the most recent one attached to this letter.”

Source location

2021-0310-Response-from-CQC_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 17 September 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026