PFD report

Barbara Joan COPE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Jun 2026•South Yorkshire (West)

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
8

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 raised4

  1. Delays in following up requested blood tests
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure scheduled investigations are followed upPart of recurring concern: Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests
  2. Lack of clear allocation and recording of responsibility for ongoing patient follow-up and care
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain clear clinical responsibility for patient care
  3. Failure to communicate and follow up abnormal blood results
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted uponPart of recurring concern: Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests
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.8

  1. Action

    Review and update the standard operating procedure for critically abnormal pathology results in clinical areas.

    Stated by the Rotherham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2026.
  2. Action

    Introduce and communicate a Trust-wide standard operating procedure for managing investigation results.

    Stated by the Rotherham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2026.
  3. Action

    Develop a Power BI module to monitor acknowledgement of results.

    Stated by the Rotherham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2026.

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

  1. Position

    Existing electronic records identify the admitting Consultant responsible for patient care and follow-up until responsibility is formally transferred.

    Stated by the Rotherham NHS Foundation TrustExisting 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

Delays in following up requested blood tests

Wider context from the report

“(3) This patient was transferred from the emergency department to the care of Surgery. A referral was then made for Gastroenterology input, they then requested a blood test for paracetamol levels. This was not followed up for 17 hours. There needs to be clear communication, understanding and record keeping of who is responsible for patient and the ongoing follow up and care in these circumstances. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure scheduled investigations are followed up; Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests.

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 clear allocation and recording of responsibility for ongoing patient follow-up and care

Wider context from the report

“(3) This patient was transferred from the emergency department to the care of Surgery. A referral was then made for Gastroenterology input, they then requested a blood test for paracetamol levels. This was not followed up for 17 hours. There needs to be clear communication, understanding and record keeping of who is responsible for patient and the ongoing follow up and care in these circumstances. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain clear clinical responsibility for patient care.

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 communicate and follow up abnormal blood results

Wider context from the report

“(1) Although a blood sample was collected and tested in a timely manner, there was no evidence of communication and/or follow up of the abnormal result, therefore time critical medication was not commenced until 19 hours later. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon; Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests.

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 review and act on clinical records and recent investigation results

Wider context from the report

“(2) Even when the patient clinically deteriorated overnight and required two separate clinical reviews, the blood results were not reviewed and/or acted upon. If clinical records and recent investigations results are not reviewed then appropriate medical management will be delayed or will not occur. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon; Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisions.

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

Review and update the standard operating procedure for critically abnormal pathology results in clinical areas.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since Mrs Cope’s death we have reviewed and updated the Standard Operating Procedure for the Management of Critically Abnormal Pathology Results in Clinical Areas and I attach a copy of the same for your reference.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 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

Introduce and communicate a Trust-wide standard operating procedure for managing investigation results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Over the years, the Trust has undertaken a programme of quality improvement work, led by the Deputy Medical Director and Chief Clinical Information Officer to strengthen our responsiveness to abnormal results. This has included ensuring that all abnormal results are flagged within MEDITECH (our electronic patient record). In addition, a Standard Operating Procedure setting out the required actions for managing investigation results was introduced and communicated Trust wide.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 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

Develop a Power BI module to monitor acknowledgement of results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, the Trust has developed a Power BI module to monitor acknowledgement of results which continues to show an improvement in clinicians’ responsiveness to the management of test results.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 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

Conduct an additional 50-result audit of documentation and appropriate action for time-critical results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An audit has been conducted by Pathology to check that the documentation for time critical results telephoned to clinical areas complies with the Standard Operating Procedure with a finding that results audited had been communicated in a timely manner. An additional audit of 50 results is currently underway focusing on whether time critical results have been documented and acted on appropriately. The result of this audit is expected by the end of August 2026.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 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

Launch an Urgent and Emergency Care Centre pilot using the alertive bleep system to flag critical blood results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I was concerned to hear that Mrs Cope deteriorated overnight, requiring two separate clinical reviews and despite this, her blood results were not reviewed. The Trust has a clear handover process in place whereby medical staff working in hours, handover tasks for follow up to the out of hours team at the face-to-face handover meetings. In addition to this, we will imminently launch a pilot within our Urgent and Emergency Care Centre of the use of the ‘alertive bleep’ system which flags critical blood results on the bleep system.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 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

Include learning from the incident in the Quality Newsletter, focusing on acting upon time-critical blood results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Deputy Chief Nurse in conjunction with colleagues from the learning from deaths programme, clinical effectiveness team and the quality governance team will include the learning from this incident in the Quality Newsletter focusing on the importance of acting upon time critical blood results.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 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

Flag all abnormal results within MEDITECH.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Over the years, the Trust has undertaken a programme of quality improvement work, led by the Deputy Medical Director and Chief Clinical Information Officer to strengthen our responsiveness to abnormal results. This has included ensuring that all abnormal results are flagged within MEDITECH (our electronic patient record). In addition, a Standard Operating Procedure setting out the required actions for managing investigation results was introduced and communicated Trust wide.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 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

Conduct a Pathology audit of documentation for time-critical results telephoned to clinical areas.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An audit has been conducted by Pathology to check that the documentation for time critical results telephoned to clinical areas complies with the Standard Operating Procedure with a finding that results audited had been communicated in a timely manner. An additional audit of 50 results is currently underway focusing on whether time critical results have been documented and acted on appropriately. The result of this audit is expected by the end of August 2026.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 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

Existing electronic records identify the admitting Consultant responsible for patient care and follow-up until responsibility is formally transferred.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Mrs Cope was admitted under a surgical Consultant, remained on the surgical ward and therefore under the care of the surgical team who were responsible for her care.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 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

Existing face-to-face handover arrangements require follow-up tasks to be transferred to the out-of-hours team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I was concerned to hear that Mrs Cope deteriorated overnight, requiring two separate clinical reviews and despite this, her blood results were not reviewed. The Trust has a clear handover process in place whereby medical staff working in hours, handover tasks for follow up to the out of hours team at the face-to-face handover meetings. In addition to this, we will imminently launch a pilot within our Urgent and Emergency Care Centre of the use of the ‘alertive bleep’ system which flags critical blood results on the bleep system.”

Source location

Response from Rotherham District General Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026