PFD report

Moses Victor Boardman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Aug 2020•Inner North London

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 commence CPR when a reversible cause for collapse overrides a DNAR order
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency response to patient collapsePart of recurring concern: Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest
  2. Failure of a commissioned care provider to escalate inability to reach a patient for care visits
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached
  3. Absence of a clear computerised record explaining a change of address in the departure lounge
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. Action

    Reiterate the Failed Visits policy and its reporting requirements to commissioned providers at the next provider forum.

    Stated by London Borough of Tower HamletsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 October 2020.
  2. Action

    Review the care provider’s service quality and require achievement of improvement-plan targets.

    Stated by London Borough of Tower HamletsStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 October 2020.
  3. Action

    Conduct departure-lounge documentation audits in line with Trust practice.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 October 2020.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The Trust disputes that an immediate reversible cause existed to override the DNAR order, concluding that no airway obstruction was present.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustDisputes 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 commence CPR when a reversible cause for collapse overrides a DNAR order

Wider context from the report

“6. The RLH failure to commence CPR when a potential reversible cause for collapse existed that would override the effect of the DNAR order. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency response to patient collapse; Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest.

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 a commissioned care provider to escalate inability to reach a patient for care visits

Wider context from the report

“4. The responsiveness of the care provider commissioned by LBTH to escalate the fact that they had been unable to reach Mr Boardman for his first 3 care visits. ”

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

Absence of a clear computerised record explaining a change of address in the departure lounge

Wider context from the report

“1. The absence of a clear computerised record in the RLH departure lounge explaining the change of address. ”

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

Lack of a clear safeguard ensuring vulnerable patients are discharged to the correct address

Wider context from the report

“2. The lack of a clear safeguard to ensure that a vulnerable patient is discharged to the correct address. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure safe post-discharge arrangements for vulnerable patients and residents.

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 properly monitor patients assessed as fed at risk

Wider context from the report

“5. The proper monitoring of patients on RLH ward 14F who have been assessed as being “fed at risk”. Specifically, why was a vulnerable patient left with unsuitable foods within his reach. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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

Failure of transport staff to properly assess venue suitability

Wider context from the report

“3. The failure of RLH transport staff to properly assess the suitability of the venue that a patient is being taken to. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable risk assessment and management for patient transport.

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

Reiterate the Failed Visits policy and its reporting requirements to commissioned providers at the next provider forum.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Three Sisters Care not informing the LA that they had been unable to provide care to MB as arranged. The Failed Visits policy requires all commissioned domiciliary care providers to inform the local authority speedily of all occasions when the provider is unable to provide care as arranged because the provider does not seem to be at home or does not admit them. Commissioned providers are routinely reminded of the Failed Visits policy at quarterly providers meetings of the importance of adhering to the policy will be reiterated to them at the next forum. The quality of service provided by Three Sisters Care is currently under review with the lead commissioner requiring targets on an improvement plan to be met. Failure to achieve the standards required may result in the provider being de-commissioned.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-London-Borough-of-Tower-Hamlets.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 22 October 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 provider’s service quality and require achievement of improvement-plan targets.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Three Sisters Care not informing the LA that they had been unable to provide care to MB as arranged. The Failed Visits policy requires all commissioned domiciliary care providers to inform the local authority speedily of all occasions when the provider is unable to provide care as arranged because the provider does not seem to be at home or does not admit them. Commissioned providers are routinely reminded of the Failed Visits policy at quarterly providers meetings of the importance of adhering to the policy will be reiterated to them at the next forum. The quality of service provided by Three Sisters Care is currently under review with the lead commissioner requiring targets on an improvement plan to be met. Failure to achieve the standards required may result in the provider being de-commissioned.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-London-Borough-of-Tower-Hamlets.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 22 October 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

Conduct departure-lounge documentation audits in line with Trust practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the inquest you asked for evidence of this change in documentation and whether any audits had taken place. As an action in light of this query the departure lounge will now complete documentation audits in line with trust practice for clinical areas to provide assurance that this is being completed.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 22 October 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

Require discharge-lounge staff to confirm transport destinations, escalate discrepancies, and record the confirmation in electronic medical records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The lack of a clear safeguard to ensure that a vulnerable patient is discharge to the correct address. Again, action was taken for this concern at the time of the SI Investigation. The departure lounge clarified in their SOP that when a patient is discharged via hospital transport the Discharge Lounge staff will confirm with the Patient Transport Service driver the location and agreed destination for the patient. Any discrepancy must be escalated to the ward area for confirmation and Senior Clinical Site Manager if this discrepancy persists. Again, as per point 1, the staff will document this within the patients electronic medical records.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 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

Require departure-lounge staff to document address changes in patients’ electronic records under a signed-off standard operating procedure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The absence of a clear computerised record in the RLH departure lounge explaining the change of address. This issue was identified as part of the trusts Serious Incident (SI) investigation and action was taken at the time. The departure lounge changed its practice to ensure that the staff document in the patients electronic record in line with trust practice. Confirmation of this has been detailed within the departments most recent version of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). At the inquest you were shown this SOP in draft form but I can update you now to say that it has now been signed off by the Royal London Hospital’s Executive Board.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 22 October 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 transport safeguarding processes and amend them according to the review findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As an action the Associate Director of Transport has arranged to review the current safeguarding processes in place and this process will be amended according to their findings.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 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 Trust disputes that an immediate reversible cause existed to override the DNAR order, concluding that no airway obstruction was present.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It’s clear from staff statements that Mr Boardman had taken a bite out of the kiwi fruit before it was removed at 2000. At 0200 he is heard coughing and when the nurse attends she finds him unresponsive. Although he has a DNR order the cardiac arrest team is called. They arrive and find him unresponsive with agonal breathing. This type of breathing would not occur with any form of upper airway obstruction; it was also six hours after he had taken a bite of the kiwi fruit. This related to poor blood flow to the brain, fitting with the description of him having an impalpable pulse. In view of no immediate reversible cause, such as an airway obstruction the DNR order was followed and the gentleman passed away peacefully two hours later.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 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

Responsibility for the commissioned care provider’s failure to escalate missed visits rests with Tower Hamlets Local Authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The responsiveness of the care provider commissioned by LBTH to escalate the fact that they had been unable to reach Mr Boardman for his first 3 visits This is a matter for LBTH to respond to”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 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

    Remind Sue Starkey House to notify the emergency duty team when a patient does not arrive as expected after hospital discharge.

    Stated by London Borough of Tower HamletsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 October 2020.
  2. 2

    Review and amend the risk-feeding guideline to include counselling details for patients and relatives.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 October 2020.

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

Remind Sue Starkey House to notify the emergency duty team when a patient does not arrive as expected after hospital discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Sue Starkey House not informing the LA that MB did not arrive with them from hospital as expected. The lead commissioner will speak to the provider and remind them of the importance of letting the emergency duty team know if a patient does not arrive as expected from hospital discharge.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-London-Borough-of-Tower-Hamlets.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 22 October 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 and amend the risk-feeding guideline to include counselling details for patients and relatives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. The proper monitoring of patients on RLH ward 14f who have been assessed as being “fed at risk”. Specifically, why was a vulnerable patient left with unsuitable foods within his reach. The trusts clinical guidelines “Guidelines for Best Practice: Eating and Drinking at Risk (Adults)” was approved in September 2019. This guideline was developed by Speech and Language Therapy and lays out the roles and responsibilities of the whole multidisciplinary team (MDT) in managing risk feeding in patients. The guideline contains a decision making tool as well as explaining the role and importance of patient preference and choice in the decision making alongside the MDT. We have reviewed this document and recognise that it is silent on the counselling of patients and their relatives as part of the process for managing their risk.”

Source location

2020-0160-Response-from-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026