PFD report

Gemma Suzanne Marshall · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Jan 2025•West Yorkshire (Western)

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
2

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 radiologist knowledge of how slipped gastric bands present
  2. Failure to recognise and report slipped gastric bands on imaging
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging
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.2

  1. Action

    Ask the relevant editor to consider the case theme and signpost a suitable anonymised CT case for educational material.

    Stated by Royal College of RadiologistsStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 January 2025.
  2. Action

    Issue a Patient Safety Update notifying Trusts about national recommendations for imaging alerts and notifications.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 January 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    Gastric-band slippage alone is not necessarily a surgical emergency, and recognising it may not have changed the outcome within the available timeframe.

    Stated by Royal College of RadiologistsDisputes 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

Lack of radiologist knowledge of how slipped gastric bands present

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was given by the consultant surgeon who fitted the band, a senior bariatric surgeon at the treating hospital and a consultant radiologist at the treating hospital that the gastric band had slipped. A CT scan was undertaken on 13.03.24 and reported on by a radiologist with expertise in musculoskeletal imaging (rather than gastric or abdominal imaging) who worked for an outsourced company. This was because of staff shortages in the hospital. The scan report mentioned the existence of the band but didn’t comment on the fact that the images clearly showed the band was out of position. That is that the stomach had slipped and had formed a pouch above the band. This was, in my view, a critical failure in the care Ms Marshall received. Had this image been correctly reported, then a referral to bariatric surgeons would have probably been made which might have meant she would have survived. Evidence from the consultant radiologist and the consultant surgeon in the hospital was that this failure to report that the band had slipped was because of a lack of familiarity in radiologists as to how slipped bands present, something which was compounded by 1. The increasing rarity of the procedure, 2. The consequences of specialists which are not familiar with the abdomen or bariatric issues and 3. A need to sometimes rely on outsourced third-party radiologists without the relevant specialist because of staff shortage. While the hospital had taken steps to address this knowledge gap, there remained a concern that this lack of knowledge as to how slipped bands present was an issue of concern across the country and that other patients could face similar failures to Marshall. ”

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 recognise and report slipped gastric bands on imaging

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was given by the consultant surgeon who fitted the band, a senior bariatric surgeon at the treating hospital and a consultant radiologist at the treating hospital that the gastric band had slipped. A CT scan was undertaken on 13.03.24 and reported on by a radiologist with expertise in musculoskeletal imaging (rather than gastric or abdominal imaging) who worked for an outsourced company. This was because of staff shortages in the hospital. The scan report mentioned the existence of the band but didn’t comment on the fact that the images clearly showed the band was out of position. That is that the stomach had slipped and had formed a pouch above the band. This was, in my view, a critical failure in the care Ms Marshall received. Had this image been correctly reported, then a referral to bariatric surgeons would have probably been made which might have meant she would have survived. Evidence from the consultant radiologist and the consultant surgeon in the hospital was that this failure to report that the band had slipped was because of a lack of familiarity in radiologists as to how slipped bands present, something which was compounded by 1. The increasing rarity of the procedure, 2. The consequences of specialists which are not familiar with the abdomen or bariatric issues and 3. A need to sometimes rely on outsourced third-party radiologists without the relevant specialist because of staff shortage. While the hospital had taken steps to address this knowledge gap, there remained a concern that this lack of knowledge as to how slipped bands present was an issue of concern across the country and that other patients could face similar failures to Marshall. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable interpretation of diagnostic imaging.

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

Ask the relevant editor to consider the case theme and signpost a suitable anonymised CT case for educational material.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCR does publish educational material including anonymised cases and I have asked the”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Radiologists
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

Issue a Patient Safety Update notifying Trusts about national recommendations for imaging alerts and notifications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All Trusts should ensure that they are following these published recommendations and that they work with their teleradiology company to embed their local alerting processes into the teleradiology workflow. On 31 January 2023, NHS England issued a Patient Safety Update to notify Trusts that the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ ‘Alerts and Notification’ paper had been published.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

Gastric-band slippage alone is not necessarily a surgical emergency, and recognising it may not have changed the outcome within the available timeframe.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Gastric bands do sometimes move out of position. Slippage of a gastric band, however, is not in and of itself a surgical emergency unless accompanied by clinical features which indicate serious complications. These features are more usually obstructive symptoms rather than symptoms of gastric infarction. Given the circumstances of Ms Marshall’s death and because she was considered well enough to be self-caring and to be discharged home at the time of the CT, even if it had been recognised that the gastric band had slipped on the CT, surgical intervention may well not have taken place within the two-day time window between her initial presentation and subsequent death. Therefore, tragically, interpretation of the CT may not have been the only factor that required to change in order for Ms Marshall’s death to have been prevented.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Radiologists
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

Emergency imaging cannot currently be reported by locally based subspecialists in every case because NHS staffing and IT provision make this impossible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Given the current state of staffing and IT provision in the NHS it is not currently possible for all emergency imaging to be reported by a local radiologist with sub-specialty expertise in the relevant area. This is as true of other sub-specialty areas of radiology (chest, neurology, musculoskeletal, gynaecology, paediatrics etc) as it is of abdominal imaging. The fact that the reporting radiologist had a specialist interest in a different area does make it inevitable they will be less expert at identifying very rare pathology in the abdomen. If the treating team have ongoing concerns, then in most imaging departments there is typically the opportunity to discuss the imaging with a local radiologist with greater relevant subspecialist knowledge during the working week.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Radiologists
Page 2 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

Emergency out-of-hours CT reporting is generally a core competency that can be delivered by radiologists without the relevant subspecialist interest.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With a few exceptions, the reporting of emergency CT scans out of hours is considered to be a core competency and is routinely delivered by radiologists with other specialist interests, both across the NHS and teleradiology companies.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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 external reporting provider is responsible for undertaking its own investigation into discrepancies in the radiological reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, the Trust have confirmed that discrepancies in the radiological reporting have been shared with the relevant external reporting provider who reported on the CT scan, who will undertake their own investigation. Discrepancies, alongside other performance markers, are routinely discussed with the external reporting provider as part of their contracting agreement.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

NHS Trusts outsourcing imaging reports remain responsible for patients and must govern teleradiology providers through robust contractual arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All NHS Trusts that outsource reporting of imaging examinations to teleradiology companies remain responsible for the patient. Trusts should have robust contract arrangements in place to ensure the teleradiology service meets the Trust’s clinical and governance standards, overseen by regular performance and management meetings between the teleradiology company and the Trust, to ensure that the Trust’s standards are delivered.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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.4

  1. 1

    Allocate additional funding for imaging services in 2025/26.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 January 2025.
  2. 2

    Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share related learning nationally and regionally.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 January 2025.
  3. 3

    Work with key partners and imaging networks to support governance of teleradiology contracts.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 January 2025.
  4. 4

    Invest in improved imaging-service IT and digital infrastructure.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 January 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Outsourcing the scan was unlikely to increase misinterpretation risk because in-house reporting was equally likely to involve a non-abdominal specialist.

    Stated by Royal College of RadiologistsDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    Detailed bespoke guidance on every gastric-band complication cannot be issued because guidance cannot cover every rare condition and clinical scenario.

    Stated by Royal College of RadiologistsUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Allocate additional funding for imaging services in 2025/26.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The contents of the HSIB’s investigation report were considered by NHS England’s Imaging Transformation Team, as part of a working group overseeing NHS England’s response to the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) Unlocking Solutions in Imaging: working together to learn from failings in the NHS 2021 report into imaging within the NHS. To support this work, significant investment has been made to improve IT and digital infrastructures within imaging services and additional funding will be allocated in 2025/26.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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 received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share related learning nationally and regionally.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Gemma, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

Work with key partners and imaging networks to support governance of teleradiology contracts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England will work with key partners, including the Royal College of Radiologists, and via the 22 imaging networks operating across the NHS, to support the governance of teleradiology contracts going forwards.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

Invest in improved imaging-service IT and digital infrastructure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The contents of the HSIB’s investigation report were considered by NHS England’s Imaging Transformation Team, as part of a working group overseeing NHS England’s response to the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) Unlocking Solutions in Imaging: working together to learn from failings in the NHS 2021 report into imaging within the NHS. To support this work, significant investment has been made to improve IT and digital infrastructures within imaging services and additional funding will be allocated in 2025/26.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

Outsourcing the scan was unlikely to increase misinterpretation risk because in-house reporting was equally likely to involve a non-abdominal specialist.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A properly staffed and funded radiology service within an acute hospital is vital to support patient care but outsourcing is commonly used as a supplementary provision. That her scan was outsourced is unlikely to have made the misinterpretation of Ms Marshall’s CT any more likely. If the scan had been reported in-house by a local radiologist, it is no more likely that it would have been allocated to have been reported by a specialist with specialist expertise in abdominal imaging and equally likely that the scan would have been reported by an in-house radiologist with specialty expertise in some other non-abdominal area.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Radiologists
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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

Detailed bespoke guidance on every gastric-band complication cannot be issued because guidance cannot cover every rare condition and clinical scenario.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Managing the imaging of a patient with abdominal pain, including a patient who may have a complication of a gastric band, is within the scope of the Clinical Radiology Specialty Training Curriculum although gastric bands are not specifically listed in the curriculum document. This is because it is a rare condition, and it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of every rare medical condition or implantable device which might be encountered or which might cause harm to a patient. Similarly, while the complications of gastric bands are also well covered by several educational papers published in the radiology literature, it is not an”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Radiologists
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2025

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