PFD report

Tony Buengo Jackson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Sep 2025•East 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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
13

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. Unavailability of notes for the 24th November admission
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe care
  2. Failure to detect iatrogenic injury despite clinical assessment and investigation
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably assess and diagnose injuries
  3. Failure of governance processes to remediate sub-optimal practice
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable PSIRF safety-incident decision and learning processes
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.11

  1. Action

    Issue Trust-wide communication requiring significant or unexpected complications to be recorded on Datix for PSIRF consideration.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 September 2025.
  2. Action

    Expand the Endoscopy Governance Meeting into a bi-monthly joint Surgery and Gastroenterology forum with governance and nursing representation.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 September 2025.
  3. Action

    Embed governance representation within Surgical and Gastroenterology Morbidity and Mortality meetings.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 September 2025.

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

  1. Position

    The consultant surgeon’s CT interpretation was a reasonable differential diagnosis given the evidence available at the time.

    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

Unavailability of notes for the 24th November admission

Wider context from the report

“3. The Trust could not provide notes of the 24th November admission. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe 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 detect iatrogenic injury despite clinical assessment and investigation

Wider context from the report

“1. A fatal iatrogenic injury caused to Tony Buengo-Jackson on 19th November 2024 went undetected until 3rd December 2024, despite admission, CT scan and surgical consult on 24th November 2024. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably assess and diagnose injuries.

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 governance processes to remediate sub-optimal practice

Wider context from the report

“4. A failure in governance at the Trust meant that this case was not identified as an incident worthy of investigation through the Patient Safety Framework. This omission gives rise to a concern that future deaths may follow due to an inability on the part of the trust to identify, reflect upon, and remediate sub-optimal practice in this case the trust’s Datix incident reporting system, morbidity and mortality meeting process and PSIRF procedure were inadequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable PSIRF safety-incident decision and learning 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

Poor recording of best interest decisions, PEG insertion and subsequent treatment

Wider context from the report

“2. Records of, best interest decisions, the PEG insertion and subsequent treatment were so poor as to impede the court’s investigation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable best-interests decision-making 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 to identify incidents requiring investigation through the Patient Safety Framework

Wider context from the report

“4. A failure in governance at the Trust meant that this case was not identified as an incident worthy of investigation through the Patient Safety Framework. This omission gives rise to a concern that future deaths may follow due to an inability on the part of the trust to identify, reflect upon, and remediate sub-optimal practice in this case the trust’s Datix incident reporting system, morbidity and mortality meeting process and PSIRF procedure were inadequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable PSIRF safety-incident decision and learning processes; 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 governance processes to reflect upon sub-optimal practice

Wider context from the report

“4. A failure in governance at the Trust meant that this case was not identified as an incident worthy of investigation through the Patient Safety Framework. This omission gives rise to a concern that future deaths may follow due to an inability on the part of the trust to identify, reflect upon, and remediate sub-optimal practice in this case the trust’s Datix incident reporting system, morbidity and mortality meeting process and PSIRF procedure were inadequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learning; Unreliable morbidity and mortality review processes.

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

Issue Trust-wide communication requiring significant or unexpected complications to be recorded on Datix for PSIRF consideration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A Trust-wide communication was issued in October 2025 reminding staff that all significant or unexpected complications, including recognised but serious procedural injuries, must be recorded on Datix for PSIRF consideration.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Expand the Endoscopy Governance Meeting into a bi-monthly joint Surgery and Gastroenterology forum with governance and nursing representation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Endoscopy Governance Meeting is being expanded to include the surgical directorate as a bi-monthly joint forum agenda (within the Gastroenterology Governance Forum) between Surgery and Gastroenterology, with governance and nursing representation, to support shared learning from endoscopy-related adverse events.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Embed governance representation within Surgical and Gastroenterology Morbidity and Mortality meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Governance presence is now embedded within Surgical and Gastroenterology M&M meetings to ensure improved linkage between M&M learning, Datix reporting, and PSIRF oversight.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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 all deaths proceeding to Coroner’s inquest at PSERM to ensure Datix capture, multidisciplinary review and an assigned learning response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• All deaths that proceed to Coroner’s inquest are now reviewed at the Patient Safety Event Response Meeting (PSERM) to ensure: o The event is captured on Datix,”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Reissue documentation guidance to consultants and trainees and disseminate it through governance meetings and resident doctor teaching.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Guidance has been re-issued to consultants and trainees regarding documentation standards for capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. This has been discussed in divisional Clinical Governance meetings and included in Resident Doctor teaching.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Roll out e-consent in endoscopy with sections for consent form 4 and best-interest discussions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• E-consent has been rolled out in endoscopy in the last 12 months and includes a detailed section for consent form 4 and best interests discussions. Currently only a limited number of clinicians have access to this system.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Reinforce requirements for clearly documenting best-interest discussions, including participants, reasoning, risks, benefits and outcomes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Trust has reinforced the requirement that all best-interest discussions are documented in the patient record, clearly recording: o who was present, o the clinical reasoning and evidence considered, o risks and benefits discussed, o and the agreed outcome.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Support divisions to improve recording of Morbidity and Mortality discussions, including use of Microsoft Copilot to capture decisions, themes and actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Trust is also strengthening the recording of Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) discussions across all divisions. Following a review of M&M processes at the December Quality and Safety Committee, divisions will be supported to embed improved documentation standards and the use of Microsoft Copilot to capture decisions, themes and actions. This will ensure that learning identified at M&M is consistently recorded, traceable, and easily retrievable for follow-up through PSERM and divisional governance structures.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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 case through the Surgical Division’s Morbidity and Mortality process and share the learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The case has been reviewed through the Surgical Division’s Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) process and learning shared.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Discuss standardising e-consent and expanding Concentric Platform access to improve electronic-record integration and reduce paper consent documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• E-consent has been rolled out in endoscopy in the last 12 months and includes a detailed section for consent form 4 and best interests discussions. Currently only a limited number of clinicians have access to this system.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Expand Martha’s Rule to all acute inpatient sites.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Measures we have taken over the last year include:”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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 consultant surgeon’s CT interpretation was a reasonable differential diagnosis given the evidence available at the time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our review confirmed that the consultant surgeon’s interpretation of the CT scan at that time represented a reasonable differential diagnosis given the available evidence. However, the rationale for this interpretation was not fully documented, limiting retrospective understanding of the decision.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

CQC will decide whether further action is needed regarding the Trust’s application of PSIRF.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the concerns about application of the PSIRF, the Trust is reviewing the mortality and morbidity process across the hospital to ensure better alignment with learning and improvement systems. CQC have raised concerns with the Trust that there is disparity in the effective application of PSIRF across the different hospital’s governance teams. The CQC will review the Trust’s response and decide if any further action is needed.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

    Monitor progress through the Trust’s Quality and Safety Committee.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 September 2025.
  2. 2

    Implement medical examiners on a statutory basis to scrutinise non-coroner-investigated deaths and support local learning.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 September 2025.

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

  1. 1

    Not all complications from lifesaving high-risk surgery can be eliminated, even when all reasonable mitigations are in place.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Monitor progress through the Trust’s Quality and Safety Committee.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Progress will be monitored through the Trust’s Quality & Safety Committee. We believe these measures provide a robust response to the risks identified in your report and will meaningfully reduce the likelihood of similar events recurring.”

Source location

Response from Barts Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Implement medical examiners on a statutory basis to scrutinise non-coroner-investigated deaths and support local learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Measures we have taken over the last year include:”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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

Not all complications from lifesaving high-risk surgery can be eliminated, even when all reasonable mitigations are in place.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Government is committed to fostering a learning culture in the NHS, to minimise harmful events however we also acknowledge that it is not realistic to eliminate all complications in patients undergoing lifesaving high-risk surgery even when all reasonable mitigations are in place.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2025

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026