PFD report

Jennine Sasha Romeo · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Mar 2026•City of London

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 raised2

  1. Lack of a system ensuring timely review and consideration of echocardiography results
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of echocardiography services to provide timely diagnostic assessment and follow-upPart of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon
  2. Lack of a pathway for echocardiography teams to flag results to clinical teams
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of echocardiography services to provide timely diagnostic assessment and follow-upPart of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon
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.4

  1. Action

    Operate and update the echocardiography escalation protocol, including senior review routes and a new criterion for pulmonary hypertension findings.

    Stated by North Middlesex University HospitalStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2026.
  2. Action

    Automatically book cancelled appointments into the next available follow-up slot and escalate repeated service cancellations for senior clinical review.

    Stated by North Middlesex University HospitalStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2026.
  3. Action

    Automatically book cancelled appointments into the next available follow-up slot and escalate repeated service cancellations to the Cardiology service manager for senior review.

    Stated by North Middlesex University HospitalStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    An established echocardiography escalation pathway and protocol adequately address significant abnormal findings.

    Stated by North Middlesex University HospitalExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 system ensuring timely review and consideration of echocardiography results

Wider context from the report

“As stated above, the evidence suggested that the outcome of a transthoracic echocardiogram performed in January 2025 at the North Middlesex University Hospital was not reviewed by any clinician until May 2025. It seems that the intention was for it to be reviewed at a valve clinic out-patient appointment, but appointments in February and March 2025 were cancelled by the hospital, and there is no evidence to suggest that the result was considered at a paper review by the Consultant on the 4th April 2025, not by any other clinical team at the hospital. There appears to be no system in place to ensure that a result such as this is viewed and considered by a member of a relevant clinical team in a timely manner, whether or not the planned out-patient appointment takes place as planned. Additionally, it seems that there is no relevant pathway for the echocardiography team to flag a result such as this to the clinical team. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of echocardiography services to provide timely diagnostic assessment and follow-up; Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon.

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 pathway for echocardiography teams to flag results to clinical teams

Wider context from the report

“As stated above, the evidence suggested that the outcome of a transthoracic echocardiogram performed in January 2025 at the North Middlesex University Hospital was not reviewed by any clinician until May 2025. It seems that the intention was for it to be reviewed at a valve clinic out-patient appointment, but appointments in February and March 2025 were cancelled by the hospital, and there is no evidence to suggest that the result was considered at a paper review by the Consultant on the 4th April 2025, not by any other clinical team at the hospital. There appears to be no system in place to ensure that a result such as this is viewed and considered by a member of a relevant clinical team in a timely manner, whether or not the planned out-patient appointment takes place as planned. Additionally, it seems that there is no relevant pathway for the echocardiography team to flag a result such as this to the clinical team. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of echocardiography services to provide timely diagnostic assessment and follow-up; Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon.

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

Operate and update the echocardiography escalation protocol, including senior review routes and a new criterion for pulmonary hypertension findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Report raised a concern regarding the lack of system in place to escalate and review abnormal findings on transthoracic echocardiogram. We can assure you that the echocardiography department has an established escalation pathway and protocol on how to action significant abnormal results. The escalation protocol (attached as Appendix 1) has been operational since 2019 with criteria based on best practice and guidelines from the British Society for Echocardiography and includes significant valvular abnormalities, ventricular abnormalities, large pericardial collections, markedly enlarged vessels, abnormal masses and other miscellaneous findings. The pathway clearly outlines the action of escalation which, depending on the findings, will include either an on-call Cardiologist review on the day of the scan or a Cardiology Consultant review of results within 2 weeks.”

Source location

Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

Automatically book cancelled appointments into the next available follow-up slot and escalate repeated service cancellations for senior clinical review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report raised a concern regarding review of clinical results in a timely manner, whether or not the planned outpatient appointment takes place. Following this a revised process has been introduced to strengthen oversight of appointment cancellations. This has been operational since April 2026. If a patient has their appointment cancelled (by either the service, or patient) they are automatically booked into the next available follow-up appointment slot by the bookings team. If a patient has had their appointment previously cancelled by the service, where it is identified that their next appointment would also be cancelled, the case is escalated to the Cardiology service manager for senior review. The case is then discussed with the relevant clinicians to determine the most appropriate course of action and minimise delay in clinical review where necessary.”

Source location

Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

Automatically book cancelled appointments into the next available follow-up slot and escalate repeated service cancellations to the Cardiology service manager for senior review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report raised a concern regarding review of clinical results in a timely manner, whether or not the planned outpatient appointment takes place. Following this a revised process has been introduced to strengthen oversight of appointment cancellations. This has been operational since April 2026. If a patient has their appointment cancelled (by either the service, or patient) they are automatically booked into the next available follow-up appointment slot by the bookings team. If a patient has had their appointment previously cancelled by the service, where it is identified that their next appointment would also be cancelled, the case is escalated to the Cardiology service manager for senior review. The case is then discussed with the relevant clinicians to determine the most appropriate course of action and minimise delay in clinical review where necessary.”

Source location

Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

Operate and annually review the echocardiography escalation pathway, including escalation of significant abnormalities and the added criterion for new pulmonary hypertension.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Report raised a concern regarding the lack of system in place to escalate and review abnormal findings on transthoracic echocardiogram. We can assure you that the echocardiography department has an established escalation pathway and protocol on how to action significant abnormal results. The escalation protocol (attached as Appendix 1) has been operational since 2019 with criteria based on best practice and guidelines from the British Society for Echocardiography and includes significant valvular abnormalities, ventricular abnormalities, large pericardial collections, markedly enlarged vessels, abnormal masses and other miscellaneous findings. The pathway clearly outlines the action of escalation which, depending on the findings, will include either on-call Cardiologist review on the day of the scan or a Cardiology Consultant review of results within 2 weeks.”

Source location

Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

An established echocardiography escalation pathway and protocol adequately address significant abnormal findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Report raised a concern regarding the lack of system in place to escalate and review abnormal findings on transthoracic echocardiogram. We can assure you that the echocardiography department has an established escalation pathway and protocol on how to action significant abnormal results. The escalation protocol (attached as Appendix 1) has been operational since 2019 with criteria based on best practice and guidelines from the British Society for Echocardiography and includes significant valvular abnormalities, ventricular abnormalities, large pericardial collections, markedly enlarged vessels, abnormal masses and other miscellaneous findings. The pathway clearly outlines the action of escalation which, depending on the findings, will include either an on-call Cardiologist review on the day of the scan or a Cardiology Consultant review of results within 2 weeks.”

Source location

Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

An established echocardiography escalation pathway and protocol are considered sufficient to address significant abnormal findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Report raised a concern regarding the lack of system in place to escalate and review abnormal findings on transthoracic echocardiogram. We can assure you that the echocardiography department has an established escalation pathway and protocol on how to action significant abnormal results. The escalation protocol (attached as Appendix 1) has been operational since 2019 with criteria based on best practice and guidelines from the British Society for Echocardiography and includes significant valvular abnormalities, ventricular abnormalities, large pericardial collections, markedly enlarged vessels, abnormal masses and other miscellaneous findings. The pathway clearly outlines the action of escalation which, depending on the findings, will include either on-call Cardiologist review on the day of the scan or a Cardiology Consultant review of results within 2 weeks.”

Source location

Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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.2

  1. 1

    Discuss and disseminate case learning on mechanical valves, abnormal parameter changes and escalation requirements to the cardiac physiology team.

    Stated by North Middlesex University HospitalStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2026.
  2. 2

    Discuss and share case learning about mechanical-valve assessment, abnormal parameter changes, and escalation with the wider cardiac physiology team.

    Stated by North Middlesex University HospitalStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2026.

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

Discuss and disseminate case learning on mechanical valves, abnormal parameter changes and escalation requirements to the cardiac physiology team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Learning points from individual cases are discussed in the departmental weekly MDT echo meeting, and in the case of Ms. Romeo the challenges of assessing mechanical valves as well as abnormal change to parameters that one should be aware of and need to escalate have been discussed and shared with the wider cardiac physiology team. There are also departmental educational sessions that specifically focus on assessment of valve disease. With regards to specific changes to the escalation pathway following Ms. Romeo’s case, the escalation criteria have been reviewed and an additional criterion, detailing the findings of new pulmonary hypertension have been included in the pathway.”

Source location

Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

Discuss and share case learning about mechanical-valve assessment, abnormal parameter changes, and escalation with the wider cardiac physiology team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Learning points from individual cases are discussed in the departmental weekly MDT echo meeting, and in the case of Ms. Romeo the challenges of assessing mechanical valves as well as abnormal change to parameters that one should be aware of and need to escalate have been discussed and shared with the wider cardiac physiology team. There are also departmental educational sessions that specifically focus on assessment of valve disease. With regards to specific changes to the escalation pathway following Ms. Romeo’s case, the escalation criteria have been reviewed and an additional criterion, detailing the findings of new pulmonary hypertension have been included in the pathway.”

Source location

Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026