PFD report

Janine Eugenie Pierrette KAISER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Sep 2015•Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

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
16

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised16

  1. Inadequate recording of food and fluid intake
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of fluid balance information
  2. Failure to obtain full details before closing Adult Protection investigations
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to establish complete and reliable evidence for safeguarding allegations
  3. Failure to refer for dietetic assessment after considerable weight loss
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably identify and respond to clinically significant weight change
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.1

  1. Action

    Share investigation learning with New Park House and recommend improvements to recording practices.

    Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 July 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    The investigation was multi-agency, with social work and safeguarding nursing involvement, rather than a single-agency investigation.

    Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilDisputes 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

Inadequate recording of food and fluid intake

Wider context from the report

“2. Records were difficult to interpret and did not accurately record times at which fluid and food had been offered to the deceased. The amounts taken by the deceased were not adequately recorded. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of fluid balance information.

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 obtain full details before closing Adult Protection investigations

Wider context from the report

“9. Single agency staff investigating Adult Protections Referrals had closed their investigation and recorded the allegations as unsubstantiated without obtaining full details of concerns raised by other professionals. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to establish complete and reliable evidence for safeguarding allegations.

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 refer for dietetic assessment after considerable weight loss

Wider context from the report

“7. The deceased had lost a considerable amount of weight but there was no referral to a dietician (although the GP had been consulted regarding her weight loss and had prescribed supplements) The importance of the supplements was not fully appreciated by all of the staff. The deceased’s weight was maintained during a hospital stay but deteriorated on her return to New Park Nursing Home ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably identify and respond to clinically significant weight change.

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 verify correct pressure mattress function

Wider context from the report

“5. Twice daily pressure mattress checks were fully completed indicating an appropriately functioning mattress. However when a mattress check was made by Tissue Viability Nurses the mattress was not alternating and the fault alarm on the mattress had been turned off. The attention of the staff was drawn to this but it was not subsequently recorded in the deceased’s records. The staff were inadequately trained in pressure mattress management. They apparently checked that the mattress had a power source but did not check that the mattress was functioning correctly. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers.

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 staff training in pressure mattress management

Wider context from the report

“5. Twice daily pressure mattress checks were fully completed indicating an appropriately functioning mattress. However when a mattress check was made by Tissue Viability Nurses the mattress was not alternating and the fault alarm on the mattress had been turned off. The attention of the staff was drawn to this but it was not subsequently recorded in the deceased’s records. The staff were inadequately trained in pressure mattress management. They apparently checked that the mattress had a power source but did not check that the mattress was functioning correctly. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers.

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

Delays in referral to Tissue Viability Nurses

Wider context from the report

“6. Referral to Tissue Viability nurses should have been done sooner. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable referrals to tissue viability services.

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 staff training in record keeping

Wider context from the report

“3. Staff appeared inadequately trained in record keeping. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate staff training for clinical and care record keeping.

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 maintain continence-related cleanliness before specialist assessment

Wider context from the report

“8. The deceased was incontinent and had required cleaning before Tissue Viability Nurses were able to examine her. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe continence care and management.

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

Poor continuity of care staff

Wider context from the report

“4. There was poor continuity of staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide continuity of care staffing; Failure to provide continuity of patient care.

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 record identified pressure mattress faults

Wider context from the report

“5. Twice daily pressure mattress checks were fully completed indicating an appropriately functioning mattress. However when a mattress check was made by Tissue Viability Nurses the mattress was not alternating and the fault alarm on the mattress had been turned off. The attention of the staff was drawn to this but it was not subsequently recorded in the deceased’s records. The staff were inadequately trained in pressure mattress management. They apparently checked that the mattress had a power source but did not check that the mattress was functioning correctly. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers.

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 staff completing care records

Wider context from the report

“1. The deceased had in place a management plan for dealing with her pressure sores. The plan was not adequately followed; turns were missed leaving long periods when the deceased remained unturned. Records were not appropriately kept when the deceased declined intervention. Records had been falsified and turns recorded when they had not been done. It was not possible to identify which member of staff had completed the forms. Nursing staff were not available to take calls from the Tissue Viability Nurses. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain clear accountability for care documentation.

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 record declined interventions

Wider context from the report

“1. The deceased had in place a management plan for dealing with her pressure sores. The plan was not adequately followed; turns were missed leaving long periods when the deceased remained unturned. Records were not appropriately kept when the deceased declined intervention. Records had been falsified and turns recorded when they had not been done. It was not possible to identify which member of staff had completed the forms. Nursing staff were not available to take calls from the Tissue Viability Nurses. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable 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

Unavailability of nursing staff for Tissue Viability Nurse calls

Wider context from the report

“1. The deceased had in place a management plan for dealing with her pressure sores. The plan was not adequately followed; turns were missed leaving long periods when the deceased remained unturned. Records were not appropriately kept when the deceased declined intervention. Records had been falsified and turns recorded when they had not been done. It was not possible to identify which member of staff had completed the forms. Nursing staff were not available to take calls from the Tissue Viability Nurses. ”

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 staff to appreciate the importance of prescribed nutritional supplements

Wider context from the report

“7. The deceased had lost a considerable amount of weight but there was no referral to a dietician (although the GP had been consulted regarding her weight loss and had prescribed supplements) The importance of the supplements was not fully appreciated by all of the staff. The deceased’s weight was maintained during a hospital stay but deteriorated on her return to New Park Nursing Home ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of patients' nutrition and hydration needs; Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirements.

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 carry out pressure sore repositioning plans

Wider context from the report

“1. The deceased had in place a management plan for dealing with her pressure sores. The plan was not adequately followed; turns were missed leaving long periods when the deceased remained unturned. Records were not appropriately kept when the deceased declined intervention. Records had been falsified and turns recorded when they had not been done. It was not possible to identify which member of staff had completed the forms. Nursing staff were not available to take calls from the Tissue Viability Nurses. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of pressure ulcers.

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

Falsification of pressure sore repositioning records

Wider context from the report

“1. The deceased had in place a management plan for dealing with her pressure sores. The plan was not adequately followed; turns were missed leaving long periods when the deceased remained unturned. Records were not appropriately kept when the deceased declined intervention. Records had been falsified and turns recorded when they had not been done. It was not possible to identify which member of staff had completed the forms. Nursing staff were not available to take calls from the Tissue Viability Nurses. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Deliberate falsification of clinical and care records; Failure to reliably reposition patients at required intervals; Inadequate management of pressure ulcers.

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

Share investigation learning with New Park House and recommend improvements to recording practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Some turns had been missed but Mrs Kaiser was known to regularly refuse to comply with the turn regime in place. It was acknowledged that such refusals were not always documented and the home took this away as a recommendation from the investigation for further work with the staff.”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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 investigation was multi-agency, with social work and safeguarding nursing involvement, rather than a single-agency investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. Single agency staff investigating Adult Protection Referrals had closed their investigation and recorded the allegations as unsubstantiated without obtaining full details of concerns raised by other professionals.”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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

Issues arising after the hospital return were not notified to the City Council, so they were not investigated by it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Twice daily pressure mattress checks were fully completed indicating an appropriately functioning mattress. However when a mattress check was made by Tissue Viability Nurses the mattress was not alternating and the fault alarm on the mattress had been turned off. The attention of the staff was drawn to this but it was not subsequently recorded in the deceased’s records. The staff were inadequately trained in pressure mattress management. They apparently checked that the mattress had a power source but did not check that the mattress was functioning correctly.”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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 investigation found that advice and support had been sought from Tissue Viability Nurses through three referrals and assessments in June and July 2014.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. The referral to Tissue Viability Nurses should have been made sooner.”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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 investigation found no evidence that fluid and food records were difficult to interpret or inaccurately recorded.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Records were difficult to interpret and did not accurately record times at which fluid and food had been offered to the deceased. The amounts taken by the deceased were not adequately recorded”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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 investigation found no evidence that the pressure-sore management plan was inadequately followed or that records had been falsified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The deceased had in place a management plan for dealing with her pressure sores. The plan was not adequately followed; turns were missed leaving long periods when the deceased remained unturned. Records were not appropriately kept when the deceased declined intervention. Records had been falsified and turns recorded when they had not been done. It was not possible to identify which member of staff had completed the forms. Nursing staff were not available to take calls from the Tissue Viability Nurses.”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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

    Raise concerns about Tissue Viability Nurse actions with the CCG safeguarding lead for escalation to the provider trust.

    Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 July 2015.
  2. 2

    Continue working in partnership with New Park House to improve care standards.

    Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 July 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Responsibility for referring subsequent concerns to adult social care lay with SSOTP staff, whose apparent procedural failure was raised with its safeguarding lead.

    Stated by Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilRedirects 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

Raise concerns about Tissue Viability Nurse actions with the CCG safeguarding lead for escalation to the provider trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• I understand it to be the case that the TVN service has no protocol for direct admissions to hospital and their actions were considered by myself, the Safeguarding Lead Nurse from the Stoke on Trent CCG and the Management at the home to be disproportionate. This view was supported by the outcomes of the subsequent investigation which did not corroborate the allegations made about poor care.”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 6 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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

Continue working in partnership with New Park House to improve care standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The learning from the investigation has been shared with the home and recommendations have been made to improve recording. New Park House was subject to a large scale adult protection investigation over 3 years ago. The management team worked closely with the local authority at that time to make the necessary improvements and raise care standards and they continue to work in partnership with us. The home was open and transparent throughout the investigations ensuring that their staff were available for interview and all their documentary evidence was available for inspection. The City Council continues to make placements into the home, as does the CCG and Staffordshire County Council.”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 6 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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 referring subsequent concerns to adult social care lay with SSOTP staff, whose apparent procedural failure was raised with its safeguarding lead.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Conclusion / Next Steps”

Source location

2015-0272-Response-by-Stoke-on-Trent-Council_Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 14 July 2015

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026