Sheila Creagan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Mar 2026•East London

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

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 raised5

  1. Failure to investigate deaths under the Patient Safety Framework
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to learn from deaths through systematic reviewPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes
  2. Failure to accurately determine and record the cause of death
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable determination and recording of causes of death
  3. Failure to diagnose infective endocarditis
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable prevention and management of infective endocarditis

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Require multidisciplinary clinical review of relevant coronial cases, including cases involving concerns about diagnosis, deterioration, monitoring, treatment or missed opportunities.

  2. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Provide relevant review outputs to the Coroner where appropriate to support transparency and demonstrate organisational learning.

  3. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Operate the Coroner’s Case Review Meeting as a formal governance mechanism for multidisciplinary oversight of inquest and coronial cases.

  4. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Clarify in governance arrangements that PSIRF is one learning mechanism and not the Trust’s sole route for reviewing deaths or responding to coronial concerns.

  5. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Use multiple review routes, including MDT, mortality, complaints, clinician reflection and CCRM reviews, rather than relying solely on PSIRF.

  6. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Share learning on echocardiography thresholds and the case’s reflective learning through the Geriatrics Clinical Group, Trust Grand Rounds and the Geriatrics Quality and Safety Meeting.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Department of Health and Social Care

    BHRUT is responsible for responding to the broader concerns raised about Mrs Creegan’s care and the application of PSIRF.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Existing clinical reviews, mortality review, governance meetings and reflection had identified sufficient learning, so a PSII would not add further learning.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  3. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    The initial cause of death reflected the best clinical judgment based on information available during life, not a failure in care or decision-making.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  4. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Heart failure was actively monitored and treated, and no contemporaneous indicators mandated a repeat echocardiogram.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  5. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    Further invasive or extensive investigation was not considered clinically appropriate because it was unlikely to alter management or improve outcomes.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  6. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

    There were no clinical indicators during life that would reasonably have prompted investigation or diagnosis of bacterial endocarditis.

    Disputes 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 investigate deaths under the Patient Safety Framework

Wider context from the report

“1. BHRUT chose not to investigate this case as part of NHS England’s Patient Safety Framework. Mrs Creagan’s death ought to have been subject to such an investigation. Decisions were reached at two clinical governance meetings that meaningful learning could not flow from a governance investigation into the circumstances of Mrs Creagan’s care. Such decisions appear to be incongruous with; a. The inaccurate cause of death initially offered by the Trust, b. The failure to investigate the seat of Mrs Creagan’s burgeoning infection after her pneumonia resolved. c. The missed diagnosis of infective endocarditis, d. The failure to monitor the development of Mrs Creagan’s heart failure during her inpatient treatment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review; Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

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 accurately determine and record the cause of death

Wider context from the report

“1. BHRUT chose not to investigate this case as part of NHS England’s Patient Safety Framework. Mrs Creagan’s death ought to have been subject to such an investigation. Decisions were reached at two clinical governance meetings that meaningful learning could not flow from a governance investigation into the circumstances of Mrs Creagan’s care. Such decisions appear to be incongruous with; a. The inaccurate cause of death initially offered by the Trust, b. The failure to investigate the seat of Mrs Creagan’s burgeoning infection after her pneumonia resolved. c. The missed diagnosis of infective endocarditis, d. The failure to monitor the development of Mrs Creagan’s heart failure during her inpatient treatment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable determination and recording of causes of death.

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 diagnose infective endocarditis

Wider context from the report

“1. BHRUT chose not to investigate this case as part of NHS England’s Patient Safety Framework. Mrs Creagan’s death ought to have been subject to such an investigation. Decisions were reached at two clinical governance meetings that meaningful learning could not flow from a governance investigation into the circumstances of Mrs Creagan’s care. Such decisions appear to be incongruous with; a. The inaccurate cause of death initially offered by the Trust, b. The failure to investigate the seat of Mrs Creagan’s burgeoning infection after her pneumonia resolved. c. The missed diagnosis of infective endocarditis, d. The failure to monitor the development of Mrs Creagan’s heart failure during her inpatient treatment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable prevention and management of infective endocarditis.

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 monitor developing heart failure during inpatient treatment

Wider context from the report

“1. BHRUT chose not to investigate this case as part of NHS England’s Patient Safety Framework. Mrs Creagan’s death ought to have been subject to such an investigation. Decisions were reached at two clinical governance meetings that meaningful learning could not flow from a governance investigation into the circumstances of Mrs Creagan’s care. Such decisions appear to be incongruous with; a. The inaccurate cause of death initially offered by the Trust, b. The failure to investigate the seat of Mrs Creagan’s burgeoning infection after her pneumonia resolved. c. The missed diagnosis of infective endocarditis, d. The failure to monitor the development of Mrs Creagan’s heart failure during her inpatient treatment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 investigate the source of a progressing infection after pneumonia resolves

Wider context from the report

“1. BHRUT chose not to investigate this case as part of NHS England’s Patient Safety Framework. Mrs Creagan’s death ought to have been subject to such an investigation. Decisions were reached at two clinical governance meetings that meaningful learning could not flow from a governance investigation into the circumstances of Mrs Creagan’s care. Such decisions appear to be incongruous with; a. The inaccurate cause of death initially offered by the Trust, b. The failure to investigate the seat of Mrs Creagan’s burgeoning infection after her pneumonia resolved. c. The missed diagnosis of infective endocarditis, d. The failure to monitor the development of Mrs Creagan’s heart failure during her inpatient treatment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable investigation of serious infection causes.

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

Require multidisciplinary clinical review of relevant coronial cases, including cases involving concerns about diagnosis, deterioration, monitoring, treatment or missed opportunities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has reflected carefully on the concern expressed in the Report that meaningful learning should have flowed from the circumstances of Mrs Creegan’s care. We accept the need to demonstrate clearly, in coronial cases, that learning is being actively pursued and is not dependent on PSIRF alone. Our revised approach is that coronial cases of this nature will be considered through the CCRM and, where relevant, alongside other existing review methodologies so that there is explicit multidisciplinary scrutiny, clear senior clinical oversight, and a documented record of the Trust’s appraisal of the care and the resulting actions.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 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

Provide relevant review outputs to the Coroner where appropriate to support transparency and demonstrate organisational learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These documents and reviews together provide a full picture of the care delivered, the decision-making at the time, and the areas where there is learning for the organisation. They also enable scrutiny from several different perspectives: clinical, professional, legal and where given, family experience. The Trust will continue to make these materials available to HM Coroner as appropriate.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 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 the Coroner’s Case Review Meeting as a formal governance mechanism for multidisciplinary oversight of inquest and coronial cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To have good governance process to support these decisions, HM Coroner will be aware that the Trust has now established a Coroner’s Case Review Meeting (CCRM) as part of its formal coronial governance arrangements.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 18 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

Clarify in governance arrangements that PSIRF is one learning mechanism and not the Trust’s sole route for reviewing deaths or responding to coronial concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Clarification within governance arrangements that PSIRF is one mechanism for learning, but not the sole route by which the Trust reviews deaths, identifies learning, or responds to coronial concerns.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 18 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

Use multiple review routes, including MDT, mortality, complaints, clinician reflection and CCRM reviews, rather than relying solely on PSIRF.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust agrees that learning should not be constrained by whether a case meets a particular PSIRF learning response threshold. In these cases, a number of review methods have been, and continue to be, used to examine the care provided and identify learning. These include:”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 18 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

Share learning on echocardiography thresholds and the case’s reflective learning through the Geriatrics Clinical Group, Trust Grand Rounds and the Geriatrics Quality and Safety Meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Reflective learning has nevertheless taken place regarding thresholds for repeating echocardiography in complex frail patients. This learning has been shared within the Geriatrics Clinical Group to inform future decision making, while recognising that any suggestion that a different outcome would have occurred is speculative.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 18 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

BHRUT is responsible for responding to the broader concerns raised about Mrs Creegan’s care and the application of PSIRF.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In preparing this response, my officials have made enquiries with NHS England and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to ensure we adequately address your concerns on PSIRF. I note you have also copied your report to Barking, Havering, and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (BHRUT) who will respond to the broader concerns you have raised.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 18 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

Existing clinical reviews, mortality review, governance meetings and reflection had identified sufficient learning, so a PSII would not add further learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The group was asked to reflect specifically on whether declaring a Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) would have generated additional learning beyond what had already been obtained. A full clinical timeline had already been completed; a Trust Mortality review and the case had been discussed at Trust wide meetings with senior medical representation. Reflective learning was also presented by the Quality and Safety Team to seek clinical colleagues’ views on whether the incident had been managed appropriately by the Quality and Safety Advisor with a focus on ensuring optimal care and outcomes for patients going forward.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 18 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

The initial cause of death reflected the best clinical judgment based on information available during life, not a failure in care or decision-making.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of death certification and Medical Examiner (ME) scrutiny, there was no clinical evidence during life to suggest bacterial endocarditis. Mrs Creegan had been diagnosed with hospital acquired pneumonia and decompensated heart failure, both of which were supported by contemporaneous clinical findings, blood results, radiological imaging, and physical examination.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 18 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

Heart failure was actively monitored and treated, and no contemporaneous indicators mandated a repeat echocardiogram.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The decision not to repeat an echocardiogram during this admission was considered reasonable in context. Mrs Creegan had undergone an ECHO in October 2024 demonstrating preserved left ventricular function (EF 55–60%), and her subsequent clinical deterioration was attributed to fluid overload and infection, both of which were actively managed.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 18 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

Further invasive or extensive investigation was not considered clinically appropriate because it was unlikely to alter management or improve outcomes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A multidisciplinary review involving the Consultant Geriatrician workforce concluded that further invasive or extensive investigations were unlikely to alter management or improve outcomes and were therefore not clinically appropriate. This decision was made in line with best interest principles and realistic treatment goals.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 18 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

There were no clinical indicators during life that would reasonably have prompted investigation or diagnosis of bacterial endocarditis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The postmortem diagnosis of bacterial endocarditis was unexpected. During life, Mrs. Creegan did not display classical features that would have prompted suspicion, such as persistent bacteraemia, new cardiac murmurs, embolic phenomena, or a deteriorating cardiac picture unexplained by existing conditions.”

Source location

Response from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 18 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026