PFD report

Dorota Marta KUKLINSKA · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Jan 2024•Birmingham and Solihull

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 raised1

  1. Failure to refer patients with strong clinical signs of a brain bleed for specialist neurosurgical advice, particularly after refusal of lumbar puncture
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of neurosurgical referral systems to provide timely specialist advice
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.6

  1. Action

    Update clinical guidance to require neurology opinions when patients refuse or have inconclusive lumbar punctures.

    Stated by Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
  2. Action

    Recirculate the ratified guidance and provide supportive communications to staff.

    Stated by Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
  3. Action

    Use an anonymised case in a learning session for medical staff on the need for neurology referral.

    Stated by Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 January 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    A neurology referral cannot be made for a patient with full mental capacity who refuses lumbar puncture without the patient's consent.

    Stated by Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 refer patients with strong clinical signs of a brain bleed for specialist neurosurgical advice, particularly after refusal of lumbar puncture

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest heard evidence from a specialist neurosurgeons at University Hospital Birmingham that there are guidelines to confirm a patient with strong clinical signs of a brain bleed, should be referred through NORSE particularly when they have refused a lumber puncture which is the usual test undertaken in accordance with the NICE guidelines. Clinicians at Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospital City hospital site said they were unaware of those guidelines and didn't consider a referral for Mrs Kuklinska. Consideration needs to be given to establishing clear guidance with acute trusts to ensure patients with strong clinical signs of a brain bleed are referred for specialist neurosurgical advice. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of neurosurgical referral systems to provide timely specialist advice.

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

Update clinical guidance to require neurology opinions when patients refuse or have inconclusive lumbar punctures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Working with UHB, we have been able to establish their internal policies state that a ‘urgent neurology opinion should be sought if a lumbar puncture is unable to confirm or refute the diagnosis of a subarachnoid haemorrhage’. SWB have committed to aligning our internal guidance with UHB by updating our clinical guidance for the management of subarachnoid haemorrhage to include a requirement to seek a neurology opinion for those patients who either refuse or have an inconclusive lumbar puncture result. In circumstances where a patient with full mental capacity has refused a lumbar puncture, they would of course have to consent to the referral being made to UHB for the neurology opinion. This amendment is currently going through our internal governance processes and will be recirculated to staff when ratified.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 January 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 the ratified guidance and provide supportive communications to staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Working with UHB, we have been able to establish their internal policies state that a ‘urgent neurology opinion should be sought if a lumbar puncture is unable to confirm or refute the diagnosis of a subarachnoid haemorrhage’. SWB have committed to aligning our internal guidance with UHB by updating our clinical guidance for the management of subarachnoid haemorrhage to include a requirement to seek a neurology opinion for those patients who either refuse or have an inconclusive lumbar puncture result. In circumstances where a patient with full mental capacity has refused a lumbar puncture, they would of course have to consent to the referral being made to UHB for the neurology opinion. This amendment is currently going through our internal governance processes and will be recirculated to staff when ratified.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 January 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

Use an anonymised case in a learning session for medical staff on the need for neurology referral.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As an interim measure, the sad case of Mrs Kuklinska has been anonymised and used as a learning session with medical staff to ensure they are aware of the need for neurology referral.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 January 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

Review the case and the high-suspicion, negative-CT, refused-lumbar-puncture scenario at a neurosurgical governance day.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action taken The concerns raised have been considered and a detailed discussion has taken place at our neurosurgical governance day where the facts of this case were considered. The consensus reached was that there is long standing guidance in place for the management and referral of patients with a diagnosis of SAH. The scenario where the referring team had a high level of suspicion for SAH but there was a negative CT and LP was refused was also considered and in this scenario it was considered that the patient should be informed by the treating team of the clinical findings with a suggestion that a second opinion be obtained. A CTA should also be considered.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 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

Circulate a letter to catchment-area emergency departments reiterating the established referral pathway and availability of on-call neurosurgical advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst it is considered that there is well established guidance in place, having considered your concern, a letter will be circulated to all emergency departments in our catchment area to re-iterate the established pathway/guidance and to highlight that, if there are concerns with particular cases, our on-call team can be contacted for advice. This letter will be circulated by 30 March 2024 and we would be happy to provide a copy to you.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 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 the Trust’s internal subarachnoid-haemorrhage management guideline with SWBH to support review of its guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also discussed this case with the patient safety team at SWBH and have shared our internal guideline for managing SAH with them to assist in review of their own guidelines. A meeting has also been arranged between ████████, Hospital Medical Director QEH, and ████████, Chief Medical Officer at SWBH to discuss any additional training/guidance that we can provide to support the clinical teams at SWBH.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 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 neurology referral cannot be made for a patient with full mental capacity who refuses lumbar puncture without the patient's consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Working with UHB, we have been able to establish their internal policies state that a ‘urgent neurology opinion should be sought if a lumbar puncture is unable to confirm or refute the diagnosis of a subarachnoid haemorrhage’. SWB have committed to aligning our internal guidance with UHB by updating our clinical guidance for the management of subarachnoid haemorrhage to include a requirement to seek a neurology opinion for those patients who either refuse or have an inconclusive lumbar puncture result. In circumstances where a patient with full mental capacity has refused a lumbar puncture, they would of course have to consent to the referral being made to UHB for the neurology opinion. This amendment is currently going through our internal governance processes and will be recirculated to staff when ratified.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 January 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

Established national guidance and referral practice are considered sufficient; not every patient refusing lumbar puncture requires specialist referral.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is established national guidance (NICE guideline NG288) in place for clinicians when considering a possible diagnosis of SAH. A diagnosis of SAH should be considered in any patient with a severe and sudden onset or rapidly escalating headache. It has been established for many years that where SAH is suspected, there should be a CT scan of the head and if this is negative/inconclusive, a lumbar puncture should be performed. Both of these tests are ordinarily performed at a referring hospital.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 1 · response
Published 25 January 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

No specific guidance exists for suspected subarachnoid haemorrhage where a patient refuses lumbar puncture or another assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the Inquest you heard evidence from ████████, Consultant Neurosurgeon, that there were guidelines in place which indicated that patients should be referred via the NoRSE referral system when there is a strong clinical suspicion of a brain bleed and particularly where they have refused a lumbar puncture. To provide some context to ████████ evidence, patients should be referred where there is a high index of suspicion of a bleed and specialist advice is required, but the Trust do not have specific guidelines for the particular scenario where a patient refuses lumbar puncture or any other assessment. It is therefore not the case that there are guidelines that exist which have not been provided to SWBH/other acute Trusts.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 1 · response
Published 25 January 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.2

  1. 1

    Share wider communications with medical teams through the regular Chief Medical Officer Bulletin.

    Stated by Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
  2. 2

    Meet with SWBH’s Chief Medical Officer to discuss additional training or guidance for its clinical teams.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 January 2024.

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 wider communications with medical teams through the regular Chief Medical Officer Bulletin.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is also a plan to share wider communications with medical teams through our regular Chief Medical Officer Bulletin.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 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

Meet with SWBH’s Chief Medical Officer to discuss additional training or guidance for its clinical teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also discussed this case with the patient safety team at SWBH and have shared our internal guideline for managing SAH with them to assist in review of their own guidelines. A meeting has also been arranged between ████████, Hospital Medical Director QEH, and ████████, Chief Medical Officer at SWBH to discuss any additional training/guidance that we can provide to support the clinical teams at SWBH.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026