PFD report

Julia MURPHY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Nov 2023•Sefton, St Helens and Knowsley

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
9

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 raised9

  1. Failure to formally request one-to-one supervision funding when necessary
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable funding responsibility and referral arrangements for required care
  2. Failure to provide appropriate falls prevention for a resident with evolving dementia
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of falls risks
  3. Failure to escalate a significant number of falls sustained by a frail older person
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 formally request one-to-one supervision funding when necessary

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable funding responsibility and referral arrangements for required 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 provide appropriate falls prevention for a resident with evolving dementia

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks.

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 escalate a significant number of falls sustained by a frail older person

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached.

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 provide organisational learning on accurate reporting and escalation

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

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 to provide training and development on falls prevention

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks.

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 conduct appropriate risk assessment for a resident with evolving dementia

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

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 to meet the mobility needs of a resident with evolving dementia

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to assess and meet patients’ mobility needs.

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 provide appropriate supervision for a resident with evolving dementia

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably supervise and monitor residents in care accommodation.

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 accurately and promptly report falls and complete falls-prevention referral forms

Wider context from the report

“Julia had 21 falls, the final fall led to her death. The 3 referral forms sent to falls prevention were incomplete, misleading and/or inaccurate. An action plan in respect of preventing future deaths from falls/falls prevention/the learning following these events was not presented at Inquest nor did there appear to be a clear plan to address inter alia; 1. Accurate/timely reporting of falls/accurate timely, completion of referral forms to the falls prevention team . 2. Escalation when such a significant number of falls were sustained by 1 frail, elderly person. 3. Meeting the needs of the resident with evolving dementia, particularly in respect of mobility, supervision, falls prevention and risk assessment. 4. Formally requesting 1-1 supervision funding when necessary/as appropriate on a case by case basis. 5. Training/development/organisational learning following these events re falls prevention and accurate reporting/escalation. The above list is not exhaustive and the care home management/owners will be best placed to develop their own action plan following the death of Julia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks.

Open source report
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
0/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.