PFD report

Mr Alfred Howell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Apr 2019•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
4

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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. Delays in reporting CT scans within the Trust’s five-day timescale
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely urgent diagnostic investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable timeliness of radiology imaging and reporting
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.3

  1. Action

    Apply internal radiology reporting turnaround guidance that prioritizes examinations by modality, urgency and referral pathway.

    Stated by Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  2. Action

    Monitor radiology reporting turnaround times as a key performance indicator and report performance to divisional management and the Trust Board.

    Stated by Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  3. Action

    Manage outstanding radiology reporting through a clinically prioritized queue, allocating resources to acute, urgent and cancer pathways to mitigate backlog risks.

    Stated by Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    National standards and clear safety frameworks for radiology reporting turnaround times are assigned to national imaging, radiology and radiographer bodies.

    Stated by Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Delays in reporting CT scans within the Trust’s five-day timescale

Wider context from the report

“During investigations into Mr Howell’s medical condition, CT scans were taken on a number of occasions. Specifically, he underwent a CT scan on 24th March 2018 which was reported on by the radiology department on 7th April 2018. Upon review at an MDT on 17th April 2018, a deterioration of the changes previously seen in both lungs was noted. An MDT plan was then to perform an early follow up CT to assess whether the changes might prove given that he had further antibiotic treatment for infection. The repeat scan took place on 17th May 2018 and was reported by the outsource company TMC on 29th May 2018. At that stage the scan was abnormal and significantly deteriorated and was brought to the attention of the Consultant in Respiratory and General Medicine. There had been an increase in the areas of consolidation, an increase in the size of now bilateral pleural effusions and both lungs had collapsed slightly. The Consultant took immediate steps to facilitate Mr Howell’s admission to hospital. The Consultant who provided evidence at the Inquest commented that a period of 5 days from CT scan to reporting by radiology is the timescale target within the Trust. The aforesaid scans took 14 days and 12 days to be reported on respectively. The latter scan was brought to the Consultant’s attention immediately. Mr Howell continued under investigation for a diagnosis and was treated appropriately. Whilst the evidence at the Inquest did not indicate any contribution by delays in the scans to his death, I am concerned that upon the evidence given that the reporting of scans fell outwith an aimed for timescale of 5 days and that this could impact the treatment of others patients in the future. I am under a duty to report this matter upon consideration of the evidence. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely urgent diagnostic investigations; Unreliable timeliness of radiology imaging and reporting.

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

Apply internal radiology reporting turnaround guidance that prioritizes examinations by modality, urgency and referral pathway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The prioritisation of image acquisition and reporting has to be tailored for different pathways, for example whilst it may be acceptable that outpatient reports are not provided on the day of acquisition, this is clearly not acceptable for emergency department patients. As there is no nationally mandated standard for the reporting turnaround of examinations at Mid Yorkshire NHS Hospitals, we apply our own guidance on the expected reporting turnaround times of radiology examinations. Different priority is given to different examinations depending on the modality (Xray, CT, MRI, Ultrasound), urgency of the request (as indicated by the referrer) and the referral source e.g. Emergency Department, Inpatient vs outpatient & GP referral. We are also asked to prioritise patients on fast track cancer pathways meaning”

Source location

2019-0116-Response-by-The-Mid-Yorkshire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Monitor radiology reporting turnaround times as a key performance indicator and report performance to divisional management and the Trust Board.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Reporting turnaround times are a key performance indicator for the radiology department. As such they are monitored internally by the radiology department, divisional management team and reported to the Trust Board. As an organisation we strive to deliver the highest quality healthcare so this focus helps us to reduce the numbers of patients who wait longer than the internal target for an examination report. Given the complexity of the workload and the challenges meeting the reporting turnaround we have a risk management approach to the outstanding reporting. Unreported examinations wait within a prioritised queue with resource prioritised to the strategic objectives of the organisation focussing on acute/clinically urgent and cancer pathways. The routine outpatient work load waits longer to be reported.”

Source location

2019-0116-Response-by-The-Mid-Yorkshire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Manage outstanding radiology reporting through a clinically prioritized queue, allocating resources to acute, urgent and cancer pathways to mitigate backlog risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Reporting turnaround times are a key performance indicator for the radiology department. As such they are monitored internally by the radiology department, divisional management team and reported to the Trust Board. As an organisation we strive to deliver the highest quality healthcare so this focus helps us to reduce the numbers of patients who wait longer than the internal target for an examination report. Given the complexity of the workload and the challenges meeting the reporting turnaround we have a risk management approach to the outstanding reporting. Unreported examinations wait within a prioritised queue with resource prioritised to the strategic objectives of the organisation focussing on acute/clinically urgent and cancer pathways. The routine outpatient work load waits longer to be reported.”

Source location

2019-0116-Response-by-The-Mid-Yorkshire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

National standards and clear safety frameworks for radiology reporting turnaround times are assigned to national imaging, radiology and radiographer bodies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The National Imaging Optimisation Delivery Board should advise on national standards for report turnaround times, so that trusts can monitor and benchmark their performance.”

Source location

2019-0116-Response-by-The-Mid-Yorkshire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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 five-day reporting timeframe was incorrect for the routine outpatient CT examinations, and reporting delays did not contribute to the death.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The matter of concern that you raise was “that upon the evidence given that the reporting of scans fell outwith an aim for timescale of 5 days and could impact the treatment of patients in the future”. Evidence at the inquest did not indicate that this had made any contribution to Mr Howell’s death.”

Source location

2019-0116-Response-by-The-Mid-Yorkshire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Current prioritisation, monitoring, internal turnaround guidance and risk-management arrangements are considered sufficient while reporting backlogs are managed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The prioritisation of image acquisition and reporting has to be tailored for different pathways, for example whilst it may be acceptable that outpatient reports are not provided on the day of acquisition, this is clearly not acceptable for emergency department patients. As there is no nationally mandated standard for the reporting turnaround of examinations at Mid Yorkshire NHS Hospitals, we apply our own guidance on the expected reporting turnaround times of radiology examinations. Different priority is given to different examinations depending on the modality (Xray, CT, MRI, Ultrasound), urgency of the request (as indicated by the referrer) and the referral source e.g. Emergency Department, Inpatient vs outpatient & GP referral. We are also asked to prioritise patients on fast track cancer pathways meaning”

Source location

2019-0116-Response-by-The-Mid-Yorkshire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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.1

  1. 1

    Review radiology reporting standards in light of relevant future national publications.

    Stated by Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 June 2019.

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 radiology reporting standards in light of relevant future national publications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Until any national standards are published by the National Imaging Optimisation Delivery Board or a clear framework is published by the RCR or SOR the radiology department will continue to work to its current standards. These will be reviewed in light of any national publications.”

Source location

2019-0116-Response-by-The-Mid-Yorkshire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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