PFD report

Mark Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Feb 2022•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised3

  1. Backlog in standard referrals causing prolonged outpatient waiting times
    Part of recurring concern: Excessive waiting times for specialist referrals
  2. Lack of a standard protocol for routine provision of referral photographs to assist triage
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient detail in referrals for safe risk assessment and prioritisationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination of referrals between healthcare teams
  3. Inconsistent provision of information in referrals for triage
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient detail in referrals for safe risk assessment and prioritisation
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

    Reinforce good oral cancer referral practice in future communications to dental professionals and commissioners.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 February 2022.

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

Backlog in standard referrals causing prolonged outpatient waiting times

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest the Court was told that there is a backlog in standard referrals such as Mr Jones being seen. This means that a referral which pre Covid meant a waiting time of approximately 2.5 months for an outpatient appointment now involves a waiting time of approximately 8 months. 2. Mr Jones’ referral was sent in by his dentist to secondary care on the standard referral pathway. On receipt by the secondary care triage team the referral was assessed and based on the information provided remained on the standard referral pathway. The evidence was that a more detailed and better quality referral that included a photograph of the lesion would have probably resulted in his case being moved off the standard pathway. The inquest was told that there is no national standard or protocol in place between dentists and secondary care to provide for the routine provision of photographs to assist in triage. Such a protocol to ensure the provision of photographs by referring dentists in conjunction with more consistent provision of information would, the inquest was told, be helpful in improving the quality of triage and reduce the risk of patients needing urgent care being missed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Excessive waiting times for specialist referrals.

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 a standard protocol for routine provision of referral photographs to assist triage

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest the Court was told that there is a backlog in standard referrals such as Mr Jones being seen. This means that a referral which pre Covid meant a waiting time of approximately 2.5 months for an outpatient appointment now involves a waiting time of approximately 8 months. 2. Mr Jones’ referral was sent in by his dentist to secondary care on the standard referral pathway. On receipt by the secondary care triage team the referral was assessed and based on the information provided remained on the standard referral pathway. The evidence was that a more detailed and better quality referral that included a photograph of the lesion would have probably resulted in his case being moved off the standard pathway. The inquest was told that there is no national standard or protocol in place between dentists and secondary care to provide for the routine provision of photographs to assist in triage. Such a protocol to ensure the provision of photographs by referring dentists in conjunction with more consistent provision of information would, the inquest was told, be helpful in improving the quality of triage and reduce the risk of patients needing urgent care being missed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient detail in referrals for safe risk assessment and prioritisation; Unreliable coordination of referrals between healthcare teams.

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

Inconsistent provision of information in referrals for triage

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest the Court was told that there is a backlog in standard referrals such as Mr Jones being seen. This means that a referral which pre Covid meant a waiting time of approximately 2.5 months for an outpatient appointment now involves a waiting time of approximately 8 months. 2. Mr Jones’ referral was sent in by his dentist to secondary care on the standard referral pathway. On receipt by the secondary care triage team the referral was assessed and based on the information provided remained on the standard referral pathway. The evidence was that a more detailed and better quality referral that included a photograph of the lesion would have probably resulted in his case being moved off the standard pathway. The inquest was told that there is no national standard or protocol in place between dentists and secondary care to provide for the routine provision of photographs to assist in triage. Such a protocol to ensure the provision of photographs by referring dentists in conjunction with more consistent provision of information would, the inquest was told, be helpful in improving the quality of triage and reduce the risk of patients needing urgent care being missed. ”

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 respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Reinforce good oral cancer referral practice in future communications to dental professionals and commissioners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the light of your recommendation, the Chief Dental Officer (CDO) will again reinforce the importance of good referral practice in future communications on oral cancer to the dental profession and commissioners. In addition, she has recommended that the NHS cascades similar communication and guidance to NHS general medical practitioners who account for the vast majority of cases referred to Head and Neck centres.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 11 February 2022

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