PFD report

Alan William Rowland Smith · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Mar 2024•Manchester South

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 provide sufficient detail in referrals for risk assessment and prioritisation
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient detail in referrals for safe risk assessment and prioritisation
  2. Lack of understanding of the need for prompt referral to vascular services
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable vascular surgery referral pathways
  3. Delays in referral for District Nursing input
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable referrals to district nursing services
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.4

  1. Action

    Provide additional training on how to access and use the GM Care Record.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 March 2024.
  2. Action

    Deliver a Masterclass on timely vascular and District Nursing referrals, including required referral information and examples of good referrals.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 March 2024.
  3. Action

    Update the GM Care Record webpage and relaunch the system to raise awareness of its information-sharing capabilities.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 March 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    Awaiting the imminent scan before processing the dermatology referral was considered clinically appropriate and in the patient’s interest.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardDisputes 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 provide sufficient detail in referrals for risk assessment and prioritisation

Wider context from the report

“2. Where such referrals were made it was essential that sufficient detail be provided to ensure that the degree of risk could be accurately assessed and effective prioritisation could take place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient detail in referrals for safe risk assessment and prioritisation.

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 understanding of the need for prompt referral to vascular services

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest heard evidence that a prompt referral to vascular services was important in cases such as these, where GPs would have limited expertise in managing the risks and offering effective treatments. The need for early referral was not, the inquest was told, widely understood. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable vascular surgery referral pathways.

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 for District Nursing input

Wider context from the report

“3. The inquest was told that as well as referral to vascular services it was important that GPs understood that District Nurses were a resource that should be utilised with prompt referrals. This could be challenging as the District Nursing Service was under huge pressure due to demand. However, they were well used to recognising high risk patients and clearer referrals for GPs around when to refer would ensure that their expertise would be available at an early stage. Management of any case such as Mr Smith’s would of necessity involve the District Nursing Team as compression bandaging was the most effective treatment to prevent a critical situation such as Mr Smith’s arising and the District Nurses were best placed to provide this. In Mr Smith’s case the referral for District Nursing input was not until a very late stage even though the GP had identified at an early appointment that compression would be of benefit. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable referrals to district nursing 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

Poor communication and fragmented input across trusts

Wider context from the report

“4. The evidence before the inquest was that there were multiple specialisms across multiple GM Trusts with different IT systems involved in Mr Smith’s care. As a consequence communication was poor with a limited understanding of his overall condition and fragmented input. The inquest was told that a framework that promoted a structure for a multi-disciplinary team approach across trusts in GM would avoid many of the challenges around information sharing across trusts. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unreliable inter-specialty communication for complex 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

Lack of understanding of the need for prompt referral to District Nursing services

Wider context from the report

“3. The inquest was told that as well as referral to vascular services it was important that GPs understood that District Nurses were a resource that should be utilised with prompt referrals. This could be challenging as the District Nursing Service was under huge pressure due to demand. However, they were well used to recognising high risk patients and clearer referrals for GPs around when to refer would ensure that their expertise would be available at an early stage. Management of any case such as Mr Smith’s would of necessity involve the District Nursing Team as compression bandaging was the most effective treatment to prevent a critical situation such as Mr Smith’s arising and the District Nurses were best placed to provide this. In Mr Smith’s case the referral for District Nursing input was not until a very late stage even though the GP had identified at an early appointment that compression would be of benefit. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable referrals to district nursing 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

Failure to follow secondary care advice for two-week-wait dermatology referral

Wider context from the report

“5. In Mr Smith’s case there had been advice from secondary care to his GP that he should be referred on the 2 Week wait path for dermatology. That advice was not taken by his GP who felt such a referral was not necessary. It was unclear what if any protocol was in place across GM when such advice was given but not followed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable two-week-wait cancer referral pathways.

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

Provide additional training on how to access and use the GM Care Record.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst data tells us that the system is being accessed and patient information being appropriately shared via the GM Care Record, it is acknowledged that not all health care professionals are accessing the benefits of this system. With this in mind, there is a programme of work currently underway with a plan to update the web page and re-launch the GM Care Record in early June 2024. The re-launch aims to raise awareness further and I can confirm that eLearning has been updated in addition to which additional training will be provided on how to access and use the system.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 3 · response
Published 19 March 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

Deliver a Masterclass on timely vascular and District Nursing referrals, including required referral information and examples of good referrals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of the findings in this case, a Masterclass learning event will be delivered in September 2024 to include advice and guidance in relation to the circumstances in which to refer and the information required within a referral to ensure timely triage and progression to care under the vascular surgery team as appropriate.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 1 · response
Published 19 March 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

Update the GM Care Record webpage and relaunch the system to raise awareness of its information-sharing capabilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is a ‘joint’ care record that exists across Greater Manchester (the GM Care Record) which holds information from various organisations including GP Practices, Acute Trusts, Adult Social Care (Local Authority) and Mental Health Trusts. Most clinicians have access to this system and to provide an indication of how often it is used, in February 2024, 708 individual acute trust staff accessed records 12,715 times, viewing 8,243 patients.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 3 · response
Published 19 March 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

Update GM Care Record eLearning to support access to and use of the system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst data tells us that the system is being accessed and patient information being appropriately shared via the GM Care Record, it is acknowledged that not all health care professionals are accessing the benefits of this system. With this in mind, there is a programme of work currently underway with a plan to update the web page and re-launch the GM Care Record in early June 2024. The re-launch aims to raise awareness further and I can confirm that eLearning has been updated in addition to which additional training will be provided on how to access and use the system.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 3 · response
Published 19 March 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

Awaiting the imminent scan before processing the dermatology referral was considered clinically appropriate and in the patient’s interest.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In regard to a GP making a decision not to follow the advice of a secondary care colleague, the GP would always be responsible for their clinical decision making. It would be unusual to ignore advice from a colleague without clinical justification. In this case, my understanding is that Mr Smith was scheduled to imminently attend for a scan and the GP decision was therefore to await scan findings prior to progressing the request to process this referral. From a clinical perspective this would be appropriate and in the interest of the patient.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 4 · response
Published 19 March 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

GPs remain responsible for their clinical decisions when deciding whether to follow secondary-care referral advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In regard to a GP making a decision not to follow the advice of a secondary care colleague, the GP would always be responsible for their clinical decision making. It would be unusual to ignore advice from a colleague without clinical justification. In this case, my understanding is that Mr Smith was scheduled to imminently attend for a scan and the GP decision was therefore to await scan findings prior to progressing the request to process this referral. From a clinical perspective this would be appropriate and in the interest of the patient.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 4 · response
Published 19 March 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

The GP practice considers that Mr Smith’s leg-swelling management, compression hosiery and District Nursing referral were clinically appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the inquest and the issuing of the Regulation 28 in this case, the GP partners have undertaken a full review of Mr Smith’s journey of care, focusing on the timing of referrals into specialist services including referrals to the vascular surgery team. The practice maintain that the management of Mr Smith’s leg swelling was appropriate.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 1 · response
Published 19 March 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

GPs can refer uncertain leg-swelling cases to vascular services for specialist triage and advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In circumstances where a GP has a query in relation to a leg swelling and whether to refer into vascular surgery, the process is for a referral to be completed so that the vascular team can then triage and determine if the patient is appropriate for them and / or to advise on the way forward.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 1 · response
Published 19 March 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

District Nursing referrals are triaged and prioritised by clinical need, with enquiries from GPs welcomed and visits arranged where indicated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regardless of the level of demand on the District Nursing (DN) Team, all referrals are triaged and prioritised appropriately so that patients are seen in order of clinical need. The service confirm that they welcome enquiries from their GP colleagues and where an enquiry indicates the potential need for a DN visit this is arranged.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 19 March 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

Specialist referrals are expected to contain relevant information and are returned with requirements when insufficient for prompt triage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is expected that any referral into any specialist service will be complete to include all relative information to enable the team reviewing / triaging the referral to do so in a timely manner. In circumstances where a referral is processed but the team are unable to promptly triage due to insufficient information, the referral is rejected with details of the information or action required in order to progress.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 19 March 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

When secondary care considers an urgent two-week-wait referral necessary, the secondary-care clinician should complete it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The standard protocol for onward referrals from secondary care (Stepping Hill Hospital) is that if a secondary care provider considers that an urgent referral onto a two week wait care pathway is required, then the referral should be completed by the secondary care clinician. This is because of the additional time involved in sending a recommendation into primary care and the referral then being completed.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 4 · response
Published 19 March 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