PFD report

Ruth Diane Eggleton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Jul 2024•Nottinghamshire

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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 raised1

  1. Lack of an evidence-based protocol for withholding or reversing DOAC and prescribing alternative anticoagulant medication
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable anticoagulation reversal decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe anticoagulant management
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.2

  1. Action

    Continue monitoring new evidence on DOAC anticoagulation decisions.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 July 2024.
  2. Action

    Develop or update NICE guidance on DOAC anticoagulation decisions in response to new evidence.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 July 2024.

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

  1. Position

    NICE cannot develop useful guidance on DOAC reversal decisions because high-quality evidence is lacking and decisions require individual clinical judgement.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 an evidence-based protocol for withholding or reversing DOAC and prescribing alternative anticoagulant medication

Wider context from the report

“1. There is a lack of evidence-based protocol for determining when to withhold and/or reverse DOAC, and when to prescribe alternative anticoagulant medication. I heard evidence from clinicians that the lack of such a protocol has led to divergence of practice amongst clinicians. I am not reassured that necessary actions to address the serious issue identified are in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable anticoagulation reversal decisions; Unsafe anticoagulant management.

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

Continue monitoring new evidence on DOAC anticoagulation decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NICE will continue to monitor new evidence in this area of practice, and will develop or update our guidance accordingly.”

Source location

Response from NICE
Page 2 · response
Published 4 July 2024

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

Develop or update NICE guidance on DOAC anticoagulation decisions in response to new evidence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NICE will continue to monitor new evidence in this area of practice, and will develop or update our guidance accordingly.”

Source location

Response from NICE
Page 2 · response
Published 4 July 2024

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

NICE cannot develop useful guidance on DOAC reversal decisions because high-quality evidence is lacking and decisions require individual clinical judgement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We agree that consideration should be given to reversing and withholding anticoagulation when a person prescribed these medications experiences significant bleeding. The reason for anticoagulation (which is not mentioned in your report) must be balanced against the estimated risk of further bleeding. In rare cases, alternative anticoagulation may be considered. Unfortunately, there is very little research evidence on which guidelines relevant to this complex decision could be based, and a high degree of clinical judgement is required in each case.”

Source location

Response from NICE
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 2024

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026