Dorothy Webb · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Aug 2017•Black Country

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
7

Described in responses

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 raised2

  1. Failure by radiologists to assess scans for findings requiring further investigation
  2. Failure to note fractures on X-rays during admission
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.7

  1. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    Establish individual Consultant Radiologists’ error and discrepancy-rate monitoring to identify practice and training needs.

  2. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    Amend the Serious Incident investigation process to expect reports to be completed before future inquests wherever possible.

  3. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    Provide additional training to reporters on the differing CRIS and PACS image presentation order.

  4. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    Produce a Lessons Learned bulletin reminding trust clinicians to review and act on all requested investigations, including non-urgent investigations.

  5. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    Provide incident feedback and remind colleagues to use the red-flag system when required, regardless of referrer or modality.

  6. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    Hold an initial meeting for multi-stemmed cases to establish timelines, responsibilities and an investigation delivery plan.

  7. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    Take complaint letters suggesting incidents to the next Serious Incident meeting for a decision.

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

  1. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    The individual radiologist’s error rate was below the threshold requiring remedial action, so no remedial intervention was considered necessary.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  2. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

    The PACS system cannot be configured to present images in the same order as CRIS, preventing that system change.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Failure by radiologists to assess scans for findings requiring further investigation

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that there was a missed opportunity and failure by the Radiologist to assess the scan which would have resulted in further investigation of the “mass” that was identified. Although this may not, on the balance of probability prevented the outcome, it may well have resulted in further medical investigation and treatment. ”

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 note fractures on X-rays during admission

Wider context from the report

“2. There was also a failure to note a fracture from the x-ray during the admission in February 2017 and consequently the patient and family were unaware of its existence until the re-admission in April 2017. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging.

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

Establish individual Consultant Radiologists’ error and discrepancy-rate monitoring to identify practice and training needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• To ensure the system for imaging discrepancy and error rate monitoring is robust to assure that individual errors in reporting are monitored to ensure they are in accordance with Royal College guidelines and identify individual training issues which require further support we have established individual Consultant Radiologists error and discrepancy monitoring rate to highlight practice issues and where training and development is required.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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

Amend the Serious Incident investigation process to expect reports to be completed before future inquests wherever possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The conclusion of the inquest was natural causes but evidence emerged during the inquest of a missed opportunity to assess a scan which would have resulted in further identification of a “mass” and a failure to note a fracture from an x-ray during a previous admission. The investigation was unfortunately not complete at the time the inquest was held and I apologise for this. The report has now been completed and the findings and resulting actions have been used in my response to you. The Serious Incident investigation process has been amended with an expectation that investigation reports will be completed wherever possible before future inquests.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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

Provide additional training to reporters on the differing CRIS and PACS image presentation order.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The CRIS and PACS records presented in a different order – CRIS (the Radiologist’s reporting system) shows the images in newest to oldest order while PACS (the system that holds the images) shows in the oldest to newest order. The PACS manager investigated whether the system could be configured to reverse the order of image presentation to match CRIS. It cannot so additional training has been provided to all reporters.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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

Produce a Lessons Learned bulletin reminding trust clinicians to review and act on all requested investigations, including non-urgent investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A ‘Lessons Learned’ bulletin has been produced to use this incident to remind clinicians across the trust of their professional responsibility to review and act on all requested investigations regardless of if they are identified as being urgent.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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

Provide incident feedback and remind colleagues to use the red-flag system when required, regardless of referrer or modality.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• To ensure that the red flag system is used where it is required regardless of referrer or modality, colleagues have been provided with feedback from this incident and reminded to follow the policy.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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

Hold an initial meeting for multi-stemmed cases to establish timelines, responsibilities and an investigation delivery plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Another finding relates to the delay in providing a Serious Incident report before the inquest. From now onwards, where a complaint letter suggests that a case might also be an incident; this will be taken to the next SI meeting for a decision. Whenever there is a multi-stemmed case, for example a complaint is also an incident and has been listed for an inquest, we will hold an initial meeting to work out the timeline and responsibilities for each team so that there is a plan to deliver the investigation and report without unnecessary gaps. Our aim is to complete an investigation before the Inquest is held so that we can discuss the findings with the family and also provide the completed report to you in good time.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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

Take complaint letters suggesting incidents to the next Serious Incident meeting for a decision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Another finding relates to the delay in providing a Serious Incident report before the inquest. From now onwards, where a complaint letter suggests that a case might also be an incident; this will be taken to the next SI meeting for a decision. Whenever there is a multi-stemmed case, for example a complaint is also an incident and has been listed for an inquest, we will hold an initial meeting to work out the timeline and responsibilities for each team so that there is a plan to deliver the investigation and report without unnecessary gaps. Our aim is to complete an investigation before the Inquest is held so that we can discuss the findings with the family and also provide the completed report to you in good time.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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 individual radiologist’s error rate was below the threshold requiring remedial action, so no remedial intervention was considered necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A review of the individual’s practice was undertaken and the error rate was below that which requires remedial action.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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 PACS system cannot be configured to present images in the same order as CRIS, preventing that system change.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The CRIS and PACS records presented in a different order – CRIS (the Radiologist’s reporting system) shows the images in newest to oldest order while PACS (the system that holds the images) shows in the oldest to newest order. The PACS manager investigated whether the system could be configured to reverse the order of image presentation to match CRIS. It cannot so additional training has been provided to all reporters.”

Source location

2017-0273-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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