PFD report

Ronald James JEPSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Mar 2024•Coventry

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
13

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. Failure to identify emergencies and contact the appropriate emergency service
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
  2. Delays in commencing and deficiencies in the quality of CPR by care staff
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure staff competence in resuscitation
  3. Failure to provide sufficiently frequent and effective emergency response training for care home staff
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate staff competence to provide first aidPart of recurring concern: Inadequate staff training for emergency responsePart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency response arrangements in care homes
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.5

  1. Action

    Deliver a face-to-face three-day Level 3 first-aid qualification to all service shift leaders.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  2. Action

    Give the two staff members without face-to-face training choking-response guidance and e-learning training.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  3. Action

    Introduce tabletop emergency exercises alongside face-to-face training and continuing e-learning.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Appropriate escalation guidance was already available; staff contacted 111 rather than 999 because they panicked, not because guidance was absent.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipDisputes 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 identify emergencies and contact the appropriate emergency service

Wider context from the report

“i. Timely and commensurate interventions of care staff can have a significant positive bearing upon the outcome of a choking episode. Training on how to deal with emergency situations is not ingrained in care home staff. ii. The circumstances of this inquest touching upon the death of Ronald JEPSON accentuated this point. The evidence was that Mr Jepson 'gargling' and becoming unresponsive was an emergency. 111 (a non-emergency number) was called by care home staff and not 999. iii. A call handler recognising it was an emergency escalated matters and guidance was given to care staff as to CPR. First attempts as resuscitation by care staff were following an appreciable period of time (ascribed to inexperience and panic) and the cardiopulmonary resuscitation was sub optimal. iv. The removal of the food occluding the airway of Mr Jepson and effective CPR was provided by paramedics immediately lead a reduced cyanosis. v. A choking episode, of itself, is a time critical event. vi. Such training at the time of the incident was ineffectual and infrequent (online) with the consequence being that when an emergency arose the actions of staff to aid a resident were cumulatively sub optimal. vii. Following the incident there has been no significant increase in training frequency such as would better enable commensurate training to be ingrained in staff which may make significant difference in averting an adverse outcome for a resident in need of emergency care/ assistance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency call handling.

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

Delays in commencing and deficiencies in the quality of CPR by care staff

Wider context from the report

“i. Timely and commensurate interventions of care staff can have a significant positive bearing upon the outcome of a choking episode. Training on how to deal with emergency situations is not ingrained in care home staff. ii. The circumstances of this inquest touching upon the death of Ronald JEPSON accentuated this point. The evidence was that Mr Jepson 'gargling' and becoming unresponsive was an emergency. 111 (a non-emergency number) was called by care home staff and not 999. iii. A call handler recognising it was an emergency escalated matters and guidance was given to care staff as to CPR. First attempts as resuscitation by care staff were following an appreciable period of time (ascribed to inexperience and panic) and the cardiopulmonary resuscitation was sub optimal. iv. The removal of the food occluding the airway of Mr Jepson and effective CPR was provided by paramedics immediately lead a reduced cyanosis. v. A choking episode, of itself, is a time critical event. vi. Such training at the time of the incident was ineffectual and infrequent (online) with the consequence being that when an emergency arose the actions of staff to aid a resident were cumulatively sub optimal. vii. Following the incident there has been no significant increase in training frequency such as would better enable commensurate training to be ingrained in staff which may make significant difference in averting an adverse outcome for a resident in need of emergency care/ assistance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure staff competence in resuscitation.

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 provide sufficiently frequent and effective emergency response training for care home staff

Wider context from the report

“i. Timely and commensurate interventions of care staff can have a significant positive bearing upon the outcome of a choking episode. Training on how to deal with emergency situations is not ingrained in care home staff. ii. The circumstances of this inquest touching upon the death of Ronald JEPSON accentuated this point. The evidence was that Mr Jepson 'gargling' and becoming unresponsive was an emergency. 111 (a non-emergency number) was called by care home staff and not 999. iii. A call handler recognising it was an emergency escalated matters and guidance was given to care staff as to CPR. First attempts as resuscitation by care staff were following an appreciable period of time (ascribed to inexperience and panic) and the cardiopulmonary resuscitation was sub optimal. iv. The removal of the food occluding the airway of Mr Jepson and effective CPR was provided by paramedics immediately lead a reduced cyanosis. v. A choking episode, of itself, is a time critical event. vi. Such training at the time of the incident was ineffectual and infrequent (online) with the consequence being that when an emergency arose the actions of staff to aid a resident were cumulatively sub optimal. vii. Following the incident there has been no significant increase in training frequency such as would better enable commensurate training to be ingrained in staff which may make significant difference in averting an adverse outcome for a resident in need of emergency care/ assistance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid; Inadequate staff training for emergency response; Unreliable emergency response arrangements in care homes.

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

Deliver a face-to-face three-day Level 3 first-aid qualification to all service shift leaders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“iv) Advanced Life Support Training for all Senior Care and Support Workers in the Services. To ensure a high level of skill set in dealing with medical emergencies in the service, the Provider has taken further steps by sourcing face to face 3-day course, Level 3 Award in First Aid at Work (RQF). The training is aimed at all Shift Leaders in the Service and is due to be delivered from the 15th May 2024 to the 18th May 2024”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Give the two staff members without face-to-face training choking-response guidance and e-learning training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“iii) Remedial measures have been implemented for when the 2 members of staff are on duty that haven’t had their face-to-face training; they have received step by step guide for dealing with a choking service user from the registered manager as well as having completed their e-learning.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Introduce tabletop emergency exercises alongside face-to-face training and continuing e-learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“iii) From the face-to-face training provided and the desk top exercises now in place, the provider is assured that should a similar incident occur staff will act accordingly without panic and in a timely manner.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Reissue care-home escalation guidance to staff and display it in key service areas.

Verbatim wording from the response

“i) In response to staff contacting 111 rather than 999 further discussions with staff team on duty on the day indicates staff acted out of panic. J&K Partnership can confirm at the time of the incident staff at the Service had an appropriate escalation guidance aimed at care homes provided by Coventry and Warwickshire ICB in place within the Service (Appendix1). The Registered Manager has recirculated the escalation guidance to all staff in the service, posters of these also displayed in key areas of the service.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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 face-to-face basic life-support and Level 1 first-aid training covering choking recognition, immediate response and escalation; training has reached 82% of staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ii) At the time of Mr. Ronald James Jepson, staff at Meadow House had all completed e-learning 1st aid training. To ensure staff team are further prepared to deal with medical emergencies that might arise during support and care delivery, Provider sourced Face-to-Face Basic Life Support Training for staff, for which 82% of the staff attended. Since the incident, the Provider has sourced and supplied Level 1 1st Aid. The training encompassed a practical session for various emergencies that might arise in the service including recognizing when a resident is choking, immediate actions to take and escalation.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Appropriate escalation guidance was already available; staff contacted 111 rather than 999 because they panicked, not because guidance was absent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“i) In response to staff contacting 111 rather than 999 further discussions with staff team on duty on the day indicates staff acted out of panic. J&K Partnership can confirm at the time of the incident staff at the Service had an appropriate escalation guidance aimed at care homes provided by Coventry and Warwickshire ICB in place within the Service (Appendix1). The Registered Manager has recirculated the escalation guidance to all staff in the service, posters of these also displayed in key areas of the service.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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.8

  1. 1

    Review home systems and processes to reduce human error across choking-risk assessment, specialist referral and risk-mitigation planning.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  2. 2

    Embed dysphagia and choking-risk policy into daily care through management oversight, policy recirculation and staff supervision.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  3. 3

    Provide continuing staff supervision focused on patient-safety awareness.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  4. 4

    Identify choking risks through mandatory assessments, implement mitigation plans, obtain specialist referrals, and ensure staff know each person’s risk and management plan.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  5. 5

    Evaluate the implemented improvement measures periodically to identify learning and improve care delivery.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  6. 6

    Recirculate standardized International Dysphagia Diet descriptors to staff and display them in the service.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  7. 7

    Continue collaborative work with key stakeholders and regulators to improve emergency-care safety.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  8. 8

    Share incident-investigation findings, lessons learned and resulting actions with staff and key stakeholders.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    All residents, including the deceased, already had choke-risk assessments and mitigation plans where required, with specialist input sought.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    A robust dysphagia and choking policy was already in place at the time of the incident and remains in place.

    Stated by J&K PartnershipDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 home systems and processes to reduce human error across choking-risk assessment, specialist referral and risk-mitigation planning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ii) The Provider has reviewed system and processes in the home to ensure they are designed to minimize the risk of human error at every stage, this includes the mandatory use of choke risk assessment for all residents, the identification of those at risk, referrals to specialist services (GP & SALT) as well as clear ease to follow risk mitigation plans for everyone at risk.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Embed dysphagia and choking-risk policy into daily care through management oversight, policy recirculation and staff supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“i) The 1st step is ensuring there is a Policy in place to provide guidance to staff on the recognition, management and support of Service Users who may present with swallowing difficulties. Also, to provide guidance on the risk of choking.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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 continuing staff supervision focused on patient-safety awareness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“iv) Staff have received and continue to receive on going supervision with a focus of raising awareness of patient safety.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Identify choking risks through mandatory assessments, implement mitigation plans, obtain specialist referrals, and ensure staff know each person’s risk and management plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ii) To support in the identification and standardized assessment of choke risk for all Service Users at Meadow House the policy provides a Choke Risk Assessment. At the time of Mr. Ronald James Jepson’s incident all Service Users receiving support and care at Meadow House including the deceased had this risk assessment completed and where required, risk mitigation action plans in place alongside Speech and Language Therapists input sought.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Evaluate the implemented improvement measures periodically to identify learning and improve care delivery.

Verbatim wording from the response

“vii) The evaluation of the above actions is an integral part of ensuring that lessons are learnt from incidents so that improvements in care and support delivery are achieved and will be undertaken periodically.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Recirculate standardized International Dysphagia Diet descriptors to staff and display them in the service.

Verbatim wording from the response

“vi) The Provider has recirculated the International Dysphagia Diet Standardized Descriptors to staff team, which also are adopted and used by the British Dietetic Association and Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists and these posters are also displayed in the service.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Continue collaborative work with key stakeholders and regulators to improve emergency-care safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The actions above and the provider continuing to work collaboratively with key stakeholders and regulators we should avert an adverse outcome for a resident in need of emergency care/ assistance at Meadow House going forward.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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 incident-investigation findings, lessons learned and resulting actions with staff and key stakeholders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the PSIRF J&K Partnership have undertaken an internal investigation into the incident as well as working with staff in the care home on lessons learned from the incident. As per policy, information from incident investigation and lessons learned and actions taken has been shared with staff and key stakeholders to minimize similar events from re-occurring.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

All residents, including the deceased, already had choke-risk assessments and mitigation plans where required, with specialist input sought.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ii) To support in the identification and standardized assessment of choke risk for all Service Users at Meadow House the policy provides a Choke Risk Assessment. At the time of Mr. Ronald James Jepson’s incident all Service Users receiving support and care at Meadow House including the deceased had this risk assessment completed and where required, risk mitigation action plans in place alongside Speech and Language Therapists input sought.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

A robust dysphagia and choking policy was already in place at the time of the incident and remains in place.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of Mr. Ronald James Jepson’s incident, J&K Partnership had a robust policy in place, Policy reference CC78-Dysphagia (Swallowing Difficulty) and Risk of Choking Policy and Procedure provided by Quality Compliance Systems Ltd, and the Provider held a valid License Certificate from QCS at the time of the incident and currently continues to do so. The Registered Manager is now continuous working on ensuring effective application of policy in day-to-day delivery of care and support.”

Source location

Response from Meadow House
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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