PFD report

Mrs Ann Caldicott · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 7 Jun 2025•North East Kent

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
19

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 raised4

  1. Failure to conduct internal investigations for learning
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
  2. Failure to consider support for nutritional status
  3. Failure to investigate malnutrition and declining frailty
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.10

  1. Action

    Deliver essential nutrition training to all staff groups.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  2. Action

    Provide additional support to the Medical Examiner team to identify cases for further investigation.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  3. Action

    Continue reviewing learning from incidents, complaints, claims and inquests to improve governance and patient safety.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 July 2025.

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

  1. Position

    It is impossible to determine whether earlier nutritional optimisation would have enabled lifesaving treatment; other conditions likely drove the poor nutritional state.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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 conduct internal investigations for learning

Wider context from the report

“2. Ann’s marked Anemia and poor nutritional state meant that she was not suitable for potentially lifesaving treatment when it became necessary. 3. No internal investigations were conducted by Ann’s GP or by the East Kent Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to establish if lessons could be learned as a result of the circumstances of Ann’s Death. 4. The Court was informed that there had been an SJR (of which I had not previously been notified) following Ann’s death. The Dr providing evidence was to raise a Datix in relation to Ann’s previous attendances and failed discharges. At the resumed inquest the Court were informed these investigations had not taken place and were not to take place. 5. No consideration was given prior to Ann’s final admission and some 18 months after the onset of symptoms of vomiting and chronic weightless, of support for Ann’s nutritional status. 6. If Ann had been in a better nutritional state on her final admission to the Kent and Canterbury, then she would have been well enough to undergo lifesaving treatment following the bladder perforation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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 consider support for nutritional status

Wider context from the report

“2. Ann’s marked Anemia and poor nutritional state meant that she was not suitable for potentially lifesaving treatment when it became necessary. 3. No internal investigations were conducted by Ann’s GP or by the East Kent Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to establish if lessons could be learned as a result of the circumstances of Ann’s Death. 4. The Court was informed that there had been an SJR (of which I had not previously been notified) following Ann’s death. The Dr providing evidence was to raise a Datix in relation to Ann’s previous attendances and failed discharges. At the resumed inquest the Court were informed these investigations had not taken place and were not to take place. 5. No consideration was given prior to Ann’s final admission and some 18 months after the onset of symptoms of vomiting and chronic weightless, of support for Ann’s nutritional status. 6. If Ann had been in a better nutritional state on her final admission to the Kent and Canterbury, then she would have been well enough to undergo lifesaving treatment following the bladder perforation. ”

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 malnutrition and declining frailty

Wider context from the report

“1. Ann’s malnutrition and declining frailty were not investigated despite continued requests by Ann and her family to primary and secondary care settings. ”

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

Poor nutritional state compromising suitability for lifesaving treatment

Wider context from the report

“2. Ann’s marked Anemia and poor nutritional state meant that she was not suitable for potentially lifesaving treatment when it became necessary. 3. No internal investigations were conducted by Ann’s GP or by the East Kent Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to establish if lessons could be learned as a result of the circumstances of Ann’s Death. 4. The Court was informed that there had been an SJR (of which I had not previously been notified) following Ann’s death. The Dr providing evidence was to raise a Datix in relation to Ann’s previous attendances and failed discharges. At the resumed inquest the Court were informed these investigations had not taken place and were not to take place. 5. No consideration was given prior to Ann’s final admission and some 18 months after the onset of symptoms of vomiting and chronic weightless, of support for Ann’s nutritional status. 6. If Ann had been in a better nutritional state on her final admission to the Kent and Canterbury, then she would have been well enough to undergo lifesaving treatment following the bladder perforation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Deliver essential nutrition training to all staff groups.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the issuing of the PFD, and as part of our expected processes, a Nutrition Trust Wide Improvement Plan (“TWIP”) had been developed for 2025/26. This followed an internal review of quality indicators across the previous year which had demonstrated inconsistent standards of nutritional care being provided, including contributing factors of gaps in staff knowledge (for example around naso-gastric feeding), and nutrition and hydration not consistently being discussed as part of the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) board rounds, which can hinder timely recognition and management of these patients’ nutritional needs.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 1 · response
Published 15 July 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

Provide additional support to the Medical Examiner team to identify cases for further investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have highlighted this case to the Lead Medical Examiner as the first point at which it was felt a Structured Judgement Review could have taken place. If this had happened then it would have triggered many other actions and the Trust could have learned from this case earlier than it has now. Individual feedback has been provided and additional support will be provided to the Medical Examiner team to allow them to better identify cases for further investigation.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 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

Continue reviewing learning from incidents, complaints, claims and inquests to improve governance and patient safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regrettably, the clinician who gave evidence at the Inquest did not raise a Datix and therefore, once again, the opportunity to investigate and learn was lost. We apologise that this wasn’t completed in a timely manner but the clinicians have been received feedback and they have reflected on the importance of raising incidents for learning and improvement. The Trust realises this is not reassuring but we believe this to be an isolated incident. However, as part of our commitment to improving governance and patient safety, the Trust will continue to review learning from incidents, complaints, claims and inquests.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 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

Enhance daily ward processes to identify nutrition-risk patients early and implement appropriate care plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the issuing of the PFD, and as part of our expected processes, a Nutrition Trust Wide Improvement Plan (“TWIP”) had been developed for 2025/26. This followed an internal review of quality indicators across the previous year which had demonstrated inconsistent standards of nutritional care being provided, including contributing factors of gaps in staff knowledge (for example around naso-gastric feeding), and nutrition and hydration not consistently being discussed as part of the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) board rounds, which can hinder timely recognition and management of these patients’ nutritional needs.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 1 · response
Published 15 July 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

Undertake a full multidisciplinary case-note review of care and treatment preceding the final admission to identify earlier holistic recognition of decline.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A multi professional review of the 12 months care and treatment preceding her admission late 2023 will take place. This is described further later in this letter.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Strengthen multidisciplinary-team processes for clinical leadership of nutritional care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of the coroner’s findings, the TWIP has been re-reviewed and the MDT element further strengthened, to ensure clear clinical leadership, to drive lasting improvements.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Include unexpected deaths routinely in clinical meeting discussions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Significant Event and Death Review”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Monitor height and weight in patients aged 65 and over, flag unintentional loss, investigate it, and consider dietary supplementation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Regular weight and height monitoring is now in place for all patients aged”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 1 · response
Published 15 July 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

Routinely consider referrals to frailty, dietetic, pharmacy, mental health, and safeguarding services for frail patients needing additional support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Clinicians are encouraged to refer frail patients early to the dietitian and frailty teams for proactive support.”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Involve the Frailty First Contact Practitioner Dietitian in early assessments and disseminate clarified referral criteria across clinical rooms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Primary Care Network’s Frailty First Contact Practitioner (FCP) Dietitian is now actively involved in early assessments.”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

It is impossible to determine whether earlier nutritional optimisation would have enabled lifesaving treatment; other conditions likely drove the poor nutritional state.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust feels this is an opinion better suited for an expert to determine and not one that requires action per se. However, the William Harvey Clinical lead for Nutrition Dr Helen Mackie, consultant gastroenterologist has stated, that it is difficult to say with any certainty what the probability would have been.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 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 Manor Clinic, as Mrs Caldicott’s primary care provider, can respond regarding consideration of support for her nutritional status.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. No consideration was given prior to Mrs Caldicott’s final admission and some 18 months after the onset of symptoms of vomiting and chronic weightless, of support for Mrs Caldicott’s nutritional status.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 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.9

  1. 1

    Measure and report nutrition-improvement progress and outcomes through the Nutrition Steering Group and Fundamentals of Care Committee, escalating barriers.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  2. 2

    Improve nutrition-related communication across clinical teams and with families.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  3. 3

    Use the approved Martha’s Rule guideline to enable families and clinicians to raise concerns.

    Stated by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  4. 4

    Update the self-neglect policy to include frailty and nutritional status as key considerations.

    Stated by Manor ClinicStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  5. 5

    Update the rough sleeping policy to assess nutritional status and encourage frailty and nutritional checks in non-traditional settings and populations.

    Stated by Manor ClinicStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  6. 6

    Record height and weight for all new care-home residents and follow up observed weight loss with investigations and dietary interventions.

    Stated by Manor ClinicStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  7. 7

    Re-emphasise CKD monitoring protocols to clinicians, discuss them regularly in clinical meetings, and refer patients to renal specialists in line with NICE guidance.

    Stated by Manor ClinicStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  8. 8

    Review the implemented patient-safety changes again in three months to assess effectiveness and integration into routine clinical practice.

    Stated by Manor ClinicStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  9. 9

    Share feedback about hospital death notification with the relevant Trust to support improvements in its practice.

    Stated by Manor ClinicStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.

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

Measure and report nutrition-improvement progress and outcomes through the Nutrition Steering Group and Fundamentals of Care Committee, escalating barriers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Progress and outcomes, including updates from care groups on their actions, will be regularly measured and reported to the Nutrition Steering Group on a bi-monthly basis, and to the Fundamentals of Care Committee (FOC) quarterly. Any concerns, delays, or barriers will be escalated through these reporting frameworks to ensure senior support and leadership.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Improve nutrition-related communication across clinical teams and with families.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Key priorities in the TWIP include:”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 1 · response
Published 15 July 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

Use the approved Martha’s Rule guideline to enable families and clinicians to raise concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust is also committed to ensuring family concerns are listened to and a guideline for clinicians for the implementation of Martha’s Rule was approved in July 2025 and is now actively being used by families and clinicians. A copy of the Trust’s guideline can be provided on request.”

Source location

Response from East Kent Hospitals University
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Update the self-neglect policy to include frailty and nutritional status as key considerations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Our self-neglect policy has also been updated to include frailty and nutritional status as key considerations.”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 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

Update the rough sleeping policy to assess nutritional status and encourage frailty and nutritional checks in non-traditional settings and populations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. Support for Vulnerable and At-Risk Groups”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Record height and weight for all new care-home residents and follow up observed weight loss with investigations and dietary interventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Improved Monitoring in Care Homes”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Re-emphasise CKD monitoring protocols to clinicians, discuss them regularly in clinical meetings, and refer patients to renal specialists in line with NICE guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Management”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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

Review the implemented patient-safety changes again in three months to assess effectiveness and integration into routine clinical practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These changes have already been implemented and will be reviewed again in three months to ensure their continued effectiveness and integration into our routine clinical practice. We remain committed to a culture of learning and continuous improvement, and we acknowledge our responsibility to act on the findings from this case.”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 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

Share feedback about hospital death notification with the relevant Trust to support improvements in its practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• However, as Mrs. Caldicott passed away in hospital following a prolonged inpatient stay, her case was not initially flagged for review. We were unaware of the full circumstances surrounding her death until the Coroner contacted us.”

Source location

Response from Manor Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 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