PFD report

Edward Richard Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Dec 2025•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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised2

  1. Absence of a validated and sufficiently discriminating sepsis screening tool for escalation in Paediatric Emergency Departments
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis
  2. Failure to consistently deploy the Sepsis Screening Tool across Paediatric Emergency and paediatric in-patient settings
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis
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.1

  1. Action

    Update paediatric sepsis guidance in 2026 and consider replacing the traffic-light system with an NPEWS-based approach.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 December 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    There are several sepsis screening or trigger tools available for use in paediatric emergency departments, contrary to the report’s premise.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceDisputes 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

Absence of a validated and sufficiently discriminating sepsis screening tool for escalation in Paediatric Emergency Departments

Wider context from the report

“The inquest was told it is acknowledged nationally that there is no Sepsis Screening Tool which is validated for use in Paediatric Emergency Departments or has a sensitivity or specificity which makes it a useful tool for escalation within a Paediatric Emergency Department. LTHT has developed a Sepsis Screening Tool (SST) which is designed to be used by relatively junior nursing staff to improve the likelihood of considering sepsis and therefore requesting a senior medical review. The SST is intended to be completed at admission or if there is a clinical deterioration, such as an increase in PAWS score to 10 or above. The tool contains various checkbox items that if present suggest a high risk of sepsis. These include abnormal respiratory rate, mottling, rash or appearing blue, high heart rate, low blood pressure, altered conscious level and parental or health professional concern. High temperature needs to be 38 degrees C or more and then only in patients less than 4 months old so is less discriminatory. There are secondary checkbox items indicating a moderate risk of sepsis including new leg pain, cold extremities, reduced urine output and temperature at any age greater than 39 degrees C. A single positive score mandates urgent assessment by a senior decision maker defined as a doctor of ST4 grade or higher, or equivalent allied health professional and if sepsis is confirmed to ensure prompt management, including giving IV antibiotics within 60 minutes. The SST tool is not designed to diagnose sepsis directly as this is the task of the senior decision maker but rather to prompt a targeted assessment, which will confirm sepsis or specifically eliminate it. Acknowledging that the trust’s SST had not been deployed in any assessment of Edward that was undertaken in the LGI PED, a trust witness told the inquest that work was ongoing to ensure a consistent application of the SST as between the PED and the paediatric in-patient units at the Leeds Children’s Hospital. As a coroner making a report of this nature, it is not for me to recommend to any third party that the Sepsis Screening Tool developed by the Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, or any document like it, should be either more widely disseminated to, or adopted as official guidance for, Paediatric Emergency Departments across England and Wales. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis.

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 consistently deploy the Sepsis Screening Tool across Paediatric Emergency and paediatric in-patient settings

Wider context from the report

“The inquest was told it is acknowledged nationally that there is no Sepsis Screening Tool which is validated for use in Paediatric Emergency Departments or has a sensitivity or specificity which makes it a useful tool for escalation within a Paediatric Emergency Department. LTHT has developed a Sepsis Screening Tool (SST) which is designed to be used by relatively junior nursing staff to improve the likelihood of considering sepsis and therefore requesting a senior medical review. The SST is intended to be completed at admission or if there is a clinical deterioration, such as an increase in PAWS score to 10 or above. The tool contains various checkbox items that if present suggest a high risk of sepsis. These include abnormal respiratory rate, mottling, rash or appearing blue, high heart rate, low blood pressure, altered conscious level and parental or health professional concern. High temperature needs to be 38 degrees C or more and then only in patients less than 4 months old so is less discriminatory. There are secondary checkbox items indicating a moderate risk of sepsis including new leg pain, cold extremities, reduced urine output and temperature at any age greater than 39 degrees C. A single positive score mandates urgent assessment by a senior decision maker defined as a doctor of ST4 grade or higher, or equivalent allied health professional and if sepsis is confirmed to ensure prompt management, including giving IV antibiotics within 60 minutes. The SST tool is not designed to diagnose sepsis directly as this is the task of the senior decision maker but rather to prompt a targeted assessment, which will confirm sepsis or specifically eliminate it. Acknowledging that the trust’s SST had not been deployed in any assessment of Edward that was undertaken in the LGI PED, a trust witness told the inquest that work was ongoing to ensure a consistent application of the SST as between the PED and the paediatric in-patient units at the Leeds Children’s Hospital. As a coroner making a report of this nature, it is not for me to recommend to any third party that the Sepsis Screening Tool developed by the Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, or any document like it, should be either more widely disseminated to, or adopted as official guidance for, Paediatric Emergency Departments across England and Wales. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis.

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

Update paediatric sepsis guidance in 2026 and consider replacing the traffic-light system with an NPEWS-based approach.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are planning to update our guidance on paediatric sepsis in 2026 and will consider adapting the current ‘traffic light’ system to one that is based on NPEWS.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 2 · response
Published 19 December 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

There are several sepsis screening or trigger tools available for use in paediatric emergency departments, contrary to the report’s premise.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Contrary to your comment that nationally there is no sepsis screening tool validated for use in a paediatric emergency department, there are several screening tools that clinicians can use. These include our guidance NG254, the Sepsis Trust documents, the AoMRC documents, or local guides, such as the one from Leicester (see attached). These are, however, ‘sepsis trigger scores’ and rely on both an earlier more general severity of illness score (such as NPEWS, PAWS etc.) and a clinician observing the child and thinking ‘could this be sepsis’. Our guidance”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 1 · response
Published 19 December 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.1

  1. 1

    Publish and maintain paediatric sepsis guidance covering management of suspected sepsis in under-16s.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 December 2025.

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

  1. 1

    NHS England, as commissioner, is better placed to respond regarding delivery of care in the emergency department.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Publish and maintain paediatric sepsis guidance covering management of suspected sepsis in under-16s.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of our current guidance, the management of a child with sepsis is covered in our guideline on suspected sepsis in under 16s (NG254), which was published in November 2025. The criteria for managing risk are consistent with the previous guideline.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 1 · response
Published 19 December 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

NHS England, as commissioner, is better placed to respond regarding delivery of care in the emergency department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“If you have not already contacted NHS England, you may wish to consider approaching them for their view. As the commissioner of the service, they are probably in a better position to respond to this report, particularly regarding the delivery of care in the emergency department.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 3 · response
Published 19 December 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026