PFD report

BERYL MARGARET ELIZABETH GOODE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Aug 2017•Bedfordshire and Luton

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised1

  1. Failure of night shift staff to consider and exclude possible head injury in residents with confusion
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably assess and diagnose injuriesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recognition and response to illness in care-home residents
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 of night shift staff to consider and exclude possible head injury in residents with confusion

Wider context from the report

“(1) At no point did the night shift staff consider that a head injury could have been the cause of the deceased’s confusion. (2) It is accepted that the night shift are not medically trained. However, that makes it all the more important that they are aware of the possibility of a head injury to the residents, even in circumstances where the resident denies an injury. (3) It is also accepted that the deceased may not actually have had a head injury from the first fall. Nevertheless, without training, the staff were not able to exclude a head injury. (4) It is also accepted that calling the emergency services some 2 hours earlier would not have prevented her death if she had sustained a head injury in the first fall. However, in certain scenarios, residents in the future may have their lives saved if head injury is considered as a possible diagnosis. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably assess and diagnose injuries; Unreliable recognition and response to illness in care-home residents.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.