PFD report

Richard Lester Ridout · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Oct 2019•West Sussex

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised4

  1. Failure to carry out cervical spine imaging after distracting injury and neck pain
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to obtain clinically indicated spinal imaging before treatment
  2. Failure to put out a trauma call for high-energy road traffic collisions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable activation of trauma response for serious injuries
  3. Failure to escalate assessment and treatment after a serious road traffic collision
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior clinicians
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.2

  1. Action

    Develop a fractured-scapula management protocol advising cervical-spine and chest X-rays and a lower threshold for clinically indicated CT scanning.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 November 2019.
  2. Action

    Develop a trauma-management protocol addressing differing collision-speed accounts, reduced clinical signs in patients using opiates or sedatives, and consideration of trauma calls.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 November 2019.

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

  1. Position

    There was no clear clinical indication for a full trauma CT scan in this case.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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

Failure to carry out cervical spine imaging after distracting injury and neck pain

Wider context from the report

“(3) There was evidence available to the medical staff involved in his treatment that Richard had consumed diazepam and buprenorphine prior to his arrival at hospital. Despite this information being available, the distracting injury to his shoulder and a complaint of neck pain no imaging of his c-spine was carried out. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to obtain clinically indicated spinal imaging before treatment.

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 put out a trauma call for high-energy road traffic collisions

Wider context from the report

“(1) I heard evidence that a trauma call would be put out if certain circumstances arose. These included where a high speed was involved in an RTC. In this inquest it was clear that inconsistent information was given about the speed and the junior doctor was informed that the speed was 50-60mph. Despite this inconsistency and evidence of a high speed collision no trauma call was put out. (2) I heard evidence that no trauma series CT scan was carried out or trauma call put out despite Richard suffering an injury requiring a high degree of force (fractured scapula) and having been involved in a roll-over RTC. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable activation of trauma response for serious injuries.

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 assessment and treatment after a serious road traffic collision

Wider context from the report

“(4) Whilst the undiagnosed condition did not contribute to Richard Ridouts death I am concerned that the failure to escalate the assessment and treatment of a person involved in such a road traffic collision could lead to deaths in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior clinicians.

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 trauma series CT scans after high-energy injury

Wider context from the report

“(1) I heard evidence that a trauma call would be put out if certain circumstances arose. These included where a high speed was involved in an RTC. In this inquest it was clear that inconsistent information was given about the speed and the junior doctor was informed that the speed was 50-60mph. Despite this inconsistency and evidence of a high speed collision no trauma call was put out. (2) I heard evidence that no trauma series CT scan was carried out or trauma call put out despite Richard suffering an injury requiring a high degree of force (fractured scapula) and having been involved in a roll-over RTC. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely access to clinically indicated CT scanning.

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

Develop a fractured-scapula management protocol advising cervical-spine and chest X-rays and a lower threshold for clinically indicated CT scanning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While there was no clear clinical indication for a full trauma CT scan on this occasion, we are currently developing a protocol for the management of patients who have sustained a fractured scapula. The protocol will advise that these patients should now have x-rays of their cervical spine and chest, with a lower threshold to perform a CT scan if clinically indicated. The work on protocols is taking place across the two hospital sites and will be complete within 3 months.”

Source location

2019-0331-Response-by-Western-Sussex-Hospitals
Page 1 · response
Published 8 November 2019

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

Develop a trauma-management protocol addressing differing collision-speed accounts, reduced clinical signs in patients using opiates or sedatives, and consideration of trauma calls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We can confirm that a protocol is being developed for the management of patients who have sustained trauma where there are differing accounts of the speed involved as well as emphasising that patients who are on long term opiates or sedatives, whether prescribed or not, will often have reduced clinical signs so the level of clinical suspicion needs to be increased. The need to give consideration to instigating a trauma call when there is an unclear account of the collision and, in particular, potential of a high speed impact, is included as part of the protocol.”

Source location

2019-0331-Response-by-Western-Sussex-Hospitals
Page 1 · response
Published 8 November 2019

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 was no clear clinical indication for a full trauma CT scan in this case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While there was no clear clinical indication for a full trauma CT scan on this occasion, we are currently developing a protocol for the management of patients who have sustained a fractured scapula. The protocol will advise that these patients should now have x-rays of their cervical spine and chest, with a lower threshold to perform a CT scan if clinically indicated. The work on protocols is taking place across the two hospital sites and will be complete within 3 months.”

Source location

2019-0331-Response-by-Western-Sussex-Hospitals
Page 1 · response
Published 8 November 2019

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.3

  1. 1

    Share the PFD report with A&E consultants and junior doctors across the Trust through teaching.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 November 2019.
  2. 2

    Share the PFD report with the Sussex Trauma Network.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 November 2019.
  3. 3

    Review current trauma-management practice to promote safe and effective patient care.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 November 2019.

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

Share the PFD report with A&E consultants and junior doctors across the Trust through teaching.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust welcomes the opportunity to review the way that complex patients who sustain trauma are managed. As part of this process, the PFD report has been shared with the A&E Consultants on both sides of the Trust and through teaching with the A&E junior Doctors. It will be shared with the Sussex Trauma network.”

Source location

2019-0331-Response-by-Western-Sussex-Hospitals
Page 1 · response
Published 8 November 2019

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

Share the PFD report with the Sussex Trauma Network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust welcomes the opportunity to review the way that complex patients who sustain trauma are managed. As part of this process, the PFD report has been shared with the A&E Consultants on both sides of the Trust and through teaching with the A&E junior Doctors. It will be shared with the Sussex Trauma network.”

Source location

2019-0331-Response-by-Western-Sussex-Hospitals
Page 1 · response
Published 8 November 2019

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

Review current trauma-management practice to promote safe and effective patient care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust was saddened by Mr Ridout’s death and would like to give our reassurance that the Trust has taken the opportunity to review our current practice to ensure we manage patients who have sustained trauma in the most safe and effective way.”

Source location

2019-0331-Response-by-Western-Sussex-Hospitals
Page 1 · response
Published 8 November 2019

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