PFD report

Gillian McKinlay · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Feb 2021•Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

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
9

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised9

  1. Inadequacy of the action plan for reducing delays in NG tube insertion and decompression
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to establish effective plans to address identified safety concerns
  2. Failure to check medical records completed by junior doctors
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to assure the quality of clinical and care records
  3. Lack of audit of the effectiveness of safety measures
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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

Inadequacy of the action plan for reducing delays in NG tube insertion and decompression

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to establish effective plans to address identified safety concerns.

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 check medical records completed by junior doctors

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to assure the quality of 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

Lack of audit of the effectiveness of safety measures

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

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 of the serious incident investigation to identify why NG tube placement failures were not escalated or referred back to requesting teams

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management 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 of nursing escalation when an NG tube cannot be sited and clinical review has not occurred

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached.

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 identify and document the staff member, records, and actions relevant to an arterial blood gas during the investigation

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

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 ensure factual accuracy and evidential support for reported EWS escalation

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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 clear allocation of overall clinical responsibility for patients remaining in the Accident and Emergency Department

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain clear clinical responsibility for patient care; Failure to provide safe ongoing care during prolonged emergency-department stays.

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 complete or appropriately refer mandated clinical reviews triggered by EWS scores

Wider context from the report

“1. For patients remaining for a considerable period of time in the Accident and Emergency Department there is no clear indication or understanding as to who is responsible for the overall patient's clinical care. 2. EWS scores indicated that a clinical review was mandated for which there is no evidence in the medical records that any such review took place by A & E medical staff or that the matter was referred to any of the on call clinical teams. 3. When the NG tube was unable to be sited and no obvious clinical review in response to the EWS scores had occurred, there is no evidence of escalation by the nursing staff either through the nursing hierarchy or the medical hierarchy. 4. The Trust's Serious Incident Review to identify the root causes of the incident raises the following concerns concerning the adequacy of the Trust's investigation and measures taken: a. NG tube not sited - the Trust's response does not address why there was a failure of escalation or referral back to the requesting teams and the updated action plan that "training on insertion should shorten time taken to decompress" is inadequate; b. that the EWS score mandated review by the acute care team (whoever that may be for these purposes-see first point), there is no evidence in the medical records apart from a blood gas that any such review took place or that any treatment occurred; c. the investigating consultant had informal conversations during the investigation with a middle grade doctor who had performed the arterial blood gas but was unable to state who this was, why no medical records were created and why no action was taken; d. the report states that there was a "correct escalation of the EWS at every stage" for which no evidence has been provided and appears to be factually incorrect; e. medical records created by the surgical registrar were in accurate as they were completed by a junior doctor and not checked; f. that no audit has taken place to ascertain whether the Trust's measures have had the appropriate effect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026