PFD report

Charles Ray Woodward · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Dec 2016•Cheshire

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 raised3

  1. Miscommunication between hospital and patients’ families about worrying declines in health
  2. Insufficiently robust monitoring of patients’ conditions through reliance on oral contact rather than physical medical attendance
  3. Inadequate communication and liaison between hospital and community care providers after discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination and information sharing between primary and secondary carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication proceduresPart of recurring concern: Unreliable return-from-hospital arrangements
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

Miscommunication between hospital and patients’ families about worrying declines in health

Wider context from the report

“There was inadequate communication and liaison between the hospital on the one hand and on the other hand the deceased’s GP practice and district nurses in the community who, following the deceased’s discharge from hospital, would be responsible for the deceased’s ongoing care. Further, monitoring of the deceased’s condition from Leighton Hospital was insufficiently robust and relied upon oral contact rather than ensuring the physical presence of a medical attendant, be that attendant hospital or community based. The evidence suggested that there was miscommunication between the hospital and the deceased’s family with the result that the deceased’s worrying decline in health was not appreciated by the hospital. ”

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

Insufficiently robust monitoring of patients’ conditions through reliance on oral contact rather than physical medical attendance

Wider context from the report

“There was inadequate communication and liaison between the hospital on the one hand and on the other hand the deceased’s GP practice and district nurses in the community who, following the deceased’s discharge from hospital, would be responsible for the deceased’s ongoing care. Further, monitoring of the deceased’s condition from Leighton Hospital was insufficiently robust and relied upon oral contact rather than ensuring the physical presence of a medical attendant, be that attendant hospital or community based. The evidence suggested that there was miscommunication between the hospital and the deceased’s family with the result that the deceased’s worrying decline in health was not appreciated by the hospital. ”

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

Inadequate communication and liaison between hospital and community care providers after discharge

Wider context from the report

“There was inadequate communication and liaison between the hospital on the one hand and on the other hand the deceased’s GP practice and district nurses in the community who, following the deceased’s discharge from hospital, would be responsible for the deceased’s ongoing care. Further, monitoring of the deceased’s condition from Leighton Hospital was insufficiently robust and relied upon oral contact rather than ensuring the physical presence of a medical attendant, be that attendant hospital or community based. The evidence suggested that there was miscommunication between the hospital and the deceased’s family with the result that the deceased’s worrying decline in health was not appreciated by the hospital. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services; Unreliable coordination and information sharing between primary and secondary care; Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures; Unreliable return-from-hospital arrangements.

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

Official responses located
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.