PFD report

Mary Brady · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Apr 2020•Manchester South

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
6

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 raised6

  1. Failure to implement controls to prevent recurrence of unsafe clinical waste disposal
  2. Failure to dispose of clinical waste in the designated secure clinical waste bin
  3. Failure to escalate recurring unsafe clinical waste disposal to senior managers
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to escalate patient-safety concerns to senior oversight
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.7

  1. Position

    Open waste baskets were not themselves causally linked to the death, which resulted from individual staff error rather than registered-person failings.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 implement controls to prevent recurrence of unsafe clinical waste disposal

Wider context from the report

“2. The gloves were clinical waste and had been disposed of other than in the clinical waste bin in the secure area. The inquest heard that there had been previous instances of used gloves being found in the waste baskets. However the issue had not been escalated to senior managers and no steps had been taken to avoid the issue reoccurring. ”

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 dispose of clinical waste in the designated secure clinical waste bin

Wider context from the report

“2. The gloves were clinical waste and had been disposed of other than in the clinical waste bin in the secure area. The inquest heard that there had been previous instances of used gloves being found in the waste baskets. However the issue had not been escalated to senior managers and no steps had been taken to avoid the issue reoccurring. ”

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 escalate recurring unsafe clinical waste disposal to senior managers

Wider context from the report

“2. The gloves were clinical waste and had been disposed of other than in the clinical waste bin in the secure area. The inquest heard that there had been previous instances of used gloves being found in the waste baskets. However the issue had not been escalated to senior managers and no steps had been taken to avoid the issue reoccurring. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate patient-safety concerns to senior oversight.

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 update care plans following identified mouthing risks

Wider context from the report

“3. Mrs Brady had been seen putting foreign non-food items in her mouth by staff. These instances had not been appropriately documented and risk assessed. The level of risk she presented was not fully understood as a result and her care plan was not updated. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable care-planning 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

Failure to document and risk assess observed mouthing of foreign non-food items

Wider context from the report

“3. Mrs Brady had been seen putting foreign non-food items in her mouth by staff. These instances had not been appropriately documented and risk assessed. The level of risk she presented was not fully understood as a result and her care plan was not updated. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of foreign-body ingestion risks.

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 prevent unsupervised access by residents with dementia to hazardous waste in communal areas

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest heard that the home at the time of Mrs Brady’s death, in common with many similar establishments had open waste paper baskets in the communal areas. Residents with dementia were left unsupervised in these areas and there was always a risk that they might access material from these waste baskets. In this case the gloves should not have been in the bin at all but there were other items in there which could have presented a choking hazard. The home had since removed all open wastebaskets from communal areas to avoid the risk. The inquest was told that similar baskets were common in care homes nationally. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Open waste baskets were not themselves causally linked to the death, which resulted from individual staff error rather than registered-person failings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The death of Mrs Brady was reviewed as part of our regulatory duties, to assess whether there was any evidence of failings by a registered person that amounted to a breach of the Regulations. The conclusion of this review found that there was insufficient evidence of a breach of the Regulations. The CQC view was that the presence of open waste baskets could not in themselves be causally linked to the death of Mrs Brady and that Mrs Brady’s death was the result of individual staff error (failure to dispose of clinical waste appropriately) rather than a failure by a registered person.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission_Redacted-1.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 5 June 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 risk-management arrangements and the action plan’s handover, communication, and assessment processes were considered to address known choking and non-food-item risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The CQC is satisfied that appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that staff recognise risks from choking and document them appropriately. This is based on our previous knowledge of this location, how they have responded to this incident and the input from Tameside Local Authority in developing an action plan.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission_Redacted-1.pdf
Page 6 · response
Published 5 June 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 glove-disposal policies, staff awareness, safety checks, and the new PPE policy and checking system were considered sufficient responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It would be good practice for staff to discuss such incidents with the manager so these could be addressed at a senior level. There were clear policies for the disposal of gloves and all staff were aware of the correct procedure. Therefore, any failure to dispose of gloves appropriately (or escalate incidents where gloves had not been appropriately disposed of) does not seem to be attributable to failings of a registered person. The CQC understood that these previous incidents were dealt with as isolated incidents and were not considered to be a trend or ongoing risk presented by visiting external health care services.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission_Redacted-1.pdf
Page 5 · response
Published 5 June 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

Visiting healthcare professionals are responsible for safely disposing of their own clinical waste under their external services’ procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“home stated that there were two separate incidents whereby health professionals had disposed of their clinical gloves incorrectly. 1) by a paramedic who had left their gloves for the home care to dispose of and 2) again by a paramedic who left clinical gloves after treating a resident to dispose of. External health care services will have their own policies and procedures for disposing of clinical waste, such as disposable gloves, when visiting community settings and care homes. It would be the visiting professional’s responsibility to safely dispose of their own clinical waste.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission_Redacted-1.pdf
Page 5 · response
Published 5 June 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

The provider’s action plan and removal of open waste baskets were considered sufficient to reduce ongoing risks in the care home.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, CQC were of the opinion that the registered persons had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safe disposal of gloves. We have reviewed the action plan developed by Balmoral Care Home and local authority and are satisfied that enough action has been taken in response to reduce further risks within this care home. This will be reviewed at our next inspection of the service.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission_Redacted-1.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 5 June 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 CQC regulatory action and continued monitoring are considered sufficient to reduce further risks at the care home.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You issued your report to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Departmental officials have made enquiries with the CQC on the regulatory activity in relation to this incident. I am therefore aware that following a review of the circumstances of Mrs Brady’s death; information provided by the registered provider and the action it has taken; and the findings of a CQC inspection conducted in February 2019, the CQC is satisfied that sufficient action has been taken to reduce further risks within the Balmoral Care Home and that there was insufficient evidence that a breach of the Regulations¹ had occurred. The CQC’s response to your report provides further detail on its considerations in relation to this case.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-the-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 5 June 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

Registered providers and service managers are responsible for safe care, local risk assessments and mitigating environmental and other risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Registered providers and managers of services are expected to ensure they are delivering care safely and doing all they can to mitigate risks through the conduct of local risk assessments (including for example, assessing environmental risks such as those associated with open wastebaskets). Providers are expected to plan care in line with good practice standards, such as guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and relevant professional and regulatory bodies.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-the-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 5 June 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.2

  1. 1

    Monitor the service and liaise with the local authority to review ongoing risks and feedback.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 June 2020.
  2. 2

    Review the care home's action plan at the next inspection, scheduled by April 2021 at the latest.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 June 2020.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Providers and registered managers, rather than the regulator, decide which specific improvements to implement after regulatory breaches are identified.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    The CQC is responsible for monitoring, inspecting and rating health and adult social care providers and taking regulatory action where necessary.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Monitor the service and liaise with the local authority to review ongoing risks and feedback.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to ensure that that this risk is minimised to the lowest possible level and to ensure service users are not placed at risk at Balmoral Care Home, we are continually monitoring the service and liaising with the local authority to review any ongoing risks and feedback. In addition, the action plan will be reviewed by CQC at the next inspection which under our current inspection methodology would be by April 2021 at the latest.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission_Redacted-1.pdf
Page 7 · response
Published 5 June 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

Review the care home's action plan at the next inspection, scheduled by April 2021 at the latest.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to ensure that that this risk is minimised to the lowest possible level and to ensure service users are not placed at risk at Balmoral Care Home, we are continually monitoring the service and liaising with the local authority to review any ongoing risks and feedback. In addition, the action plan will be reviewed by CQC at the next inspection which under our current inspection methodology would be by April 2021 at the latest.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission_Redacted-1.pdf
Page 7 · response
Published 5 June 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

Providers and registered managers, rather than the regulator, decide which specific improvements to implement after regulatory breaches are identified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In accordance with CQC’s regulatory remit, as with other regulators, we highlight breaches of the regulations to a Provider and where appropriate ask them what they are going to do to make improvements. We do not tell them what they should do. That is for the Provider and/or Registered Manager (‘registered person’) to decide.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission_Redacted-1.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 5 June 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

The CQC is responsible for monitoring, inspecting and rating health and adult social care providers and taking regulatory action where necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is for the CQC as the independent regulator of all health and adult social care providers to monitor, inspect and rate services and the CQC has a range of powers it can take against providers when the quality and safety of services falls below the fundamental standards set out in Regulations.”

Source location

2020-0105-Response-from-the-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 5 June 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026