PFD report

David Charles Noel Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Oct 2025•Nottinghamshire

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
5

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 raised5

  1. Failure to disseminate learning about atypical aortic dissections to relevant clinicians
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate recognition controls for atypical aortic emergencies
  2. Failure to escalate significant clinical changes for review by appropriately senior clinicians
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior cliniciansPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide effective senior clinical oversight of patient care
  3. Failure to carry out Emergency Department morbidity and mortality reviews
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable morbidity and mortality review processes
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

    Collaborate with the East Midlands Aortic Network to incorporate regional best practice and learning into Acute Aortic Dissection diagnosis improvement.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 October 2025.

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 disseminate learning about atypical aortic dissections to relevant clinicians

Wider context from the report

“1. Whilst reviews were carried out through the Morbidity and Mortality process for two of the departments involved in Mr Jones’ care, one has not been carried out by the Emergency Department, despite concerns raised at inquest by the witness from that team. I am concerned that potential learning, which may make a difference to future patients presenting with atypical aortic dissections, has not been identified or passed on to clinicians within the emergency department and any other relevant departments. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate recognition controls for atypical aortic emergencies.

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 significant clinical changes for review by appropriately senior clinicians

Wider context from the report

“2. Despite Mr Jones’ clinical picture changing whilst in the emergency department, the middle grade doctor reviewing Mr Jones did not alert a senior doctor of the change. I am concerned that training in relation to atypical aortic dissections brought to my attention in evidence at this and a previous inquest, and to my coroner colleague’s attention in inquests they conducted, may not have been ineffective. I am concerned about recurrence for other patients who present atypically, and that the patients who experience similar significant developments whilst in hospital may remain unreviewed by those with the appropriate skill and seniority, and a risk of death from undiagnosed aortic dissections may follow. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior clinicians; Failure to provide effective senior clinical oversight of 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

Failure to carry out Emergency Department morbidity and mortality reviews

Wider context from the report

“1. Whilst reviews were carried out through the Morbidity and Mortality process for two of the departments involved in Mr Jones’ care, one has not been carried out by the Emergency Department, despite concerns raised at inquest by the witness from that team. I am concerned that potential learning, which may make a difference to future patients presenting with atypical aortic dissections, has not been identified or passed on to clinicians within the emergency department and any other relevant departments. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable morbidity and mortality review processes.

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 identify learning from atypical aortic dissection cases

Wider context from the report

“1. Whilst reviews were carried out through the Morbidity and Mortality process for two of the departments involved in Mr Jones’ care, one has not been carried out by the Emergency Department, despite concerns raised at inquest by the witness from that team. I am concerned that potential learning, which may make a difference to future patients presenting with atypical aortic dissections, has not been identified or passed on to clinicians within the emergency department and any other relevant departments. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate recognition controls for atypical aortic emergencies.

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

Potential ineffectiveness of training on atypical aortic dissections

Wider context from the report

“2. Despite Mr Jones’ clinical picture changing whilst in the emergency department, the middle grade doctor reviewing Mr Jones did not alert a senior doctor of the change. I am concerned that training in relation to atypical aortic dissections brought to my attention in evidence at this and a previous inquest, and to my coroner colleague’s attention in inquests they conducted, may not have been ineffective. I am concerned about recurrence for other patients who present atypically, and that the patients who experience similar significant developments whilst in hospital may remain unreviewed by those with the appropriate skill and seniority, and a risk of death from undiagnosed aortic dissections may follow. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate recognition controls for atypical aortic emergencies.

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

Collaborate with the East Midlands Aortic Network to incorporate regional best practice and learning into Acute Aortic Dissection diagnosis improvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Acute Aortic Dissection Diagnosis improvement work is in liaison with colleagues from across the East Midlands Aortic Network to ensure inclusion of best practice and learning from other regional centres across the network and National Programmes.”

Source location

Response from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 20 October 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

    Deliver an Acute Aortic Dissection Improvement project to improve early diagnosis and detection across relevant clinical teams.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 October 2025.

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 an Acute Aortic Dissection Improvement project to improve early diagnosis and detection across relevant clinical teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This response describes a program of work at NUH with workstreams supporting the improvement of early diagnosis of Acute Aortic Dissection.”

Source location

Response from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 20 October 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