PFD report

John Robert Maltby Worthington · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Jun 2018•Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
5

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 raised3

  1. Failure to take or record a full set of observations
  2. Failure to investigate persistent back pain and tenderness
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to investigate persistent or severe painPart of recurring concern: Failure to investigate prolonged unexplained symptoms
  3. Failure to undertake further imaging in borderline presentations of significant head injury
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuriesPart of recurring concern: Failure to assess and respond promptly to significant signs of injuryPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably assess and diagnose injuries
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.4

  1. Action

    Complete an online record-keeping course.

    Stated by Recipient name withheldStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2018.
  2. Action

    Take and document a full set of observations when examining patients.

    Stated by Recipient name withheldStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 August 2018.
  3. Action

    Consider or make x-ray referrals for older patients after significant trauma.

    Stated by Recipient name withheldStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 August 2018.

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

  1. Position

    No further investigations were considered necessary because there were no clinical signs indicating a need at the time.

    Stated by Recipient name withheldNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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

Failure to take or record a full set of observations

Wider context from the report

“(2) Mr Worthington persistently complained of back pain. He saw his GP on the 13th April 2017. He was tender on his back. No further investigation was recommended and a full set of observations were not taken or recorded. He presented to the hospital 3 days later with irreversible bronchopneumonia. A full set of observations may have given an earlier indication of the developing problem. ”

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 persistent back pain and tenderness

Wider context from the report

“(2) Mr Worthington persistently complained of back pain. He saw his GP on the 13th April 2017. He was tender on his back. No further investigation was recommended and a full set of observations were not taken or recorded. He presented to the hospital 3 days later with irreversible bronchopneumonia. A full set of observations may have given an earlier indication of the developing problem. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to investigate persistent or severe pain; Failure to investigate prolonged unexplained symptoms.

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 undertake further imaging in borderline presentations of significant head injury

Wider context from the report

“(1) The deceased attended A&E on the 4th April 2017.He had a very significant head injury 10 cm long requiring 15 stitches and exposing the skull. He had fallen downstairs. He gave a history of a fall from 4 steps. He complained of back and neck pain. Examination of the spine did not reveal any tenderness and other observations were within normal parameters. Further investigations were considered unnecessary and the NICE guidelines were considered. . The deceased’s presenting complaint appeared to fall within a grey area/borderline decision warranting further investigation by way of x-ray/scan. A decision was made not to do this. He later died from injuries sustained in that fall. It is understood that nationally work may be underway to reduce the threshold in such borderline cases. It may be of benefit to future patients for this matter to be further considered. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuries; Failure to assess and respond promptly to significant signs of injury; Failure to reliably assess and diagnose injuries.

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

Complete an online record-keeping course.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ is completing an online course in record keeping and has also taken this opportunity to review the GMC’s guidance on record keeping.”

Source location

2018-0204-Response-by-MDDUS
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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

Take and document a full set of observations when examining patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to the criticism of failing to take and/or record a full set of observations, ████████ agrees that she has not recorded Dr Worthington’s blood pressure or O2 saturations. ████████ cannot recall now whether she undertook these observations. ████████ will be more aware of documenting a full set of observations in future.”

Source location

2018-0204-Response-by-MDDUS
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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

Consider or make x-ray referrals for older patients after significant trauma.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When ████████ examined Dr Worthington she did not feel that an x-ray of the ribs/lumbar spine was indicated given that Dr Worthington was not suffering from any midline lumbar spine bony tenderness. In retrospect however, ████████ accepts that an x-ray may well have picked up the fractures sustained by Dr Worthington which in turn may have led to a different outcome. Having reflected on this aspect of the case, ████████ is now more likely to send patients of a similar age for x-rays in future after any significant trauma.”

Source location

2018-0204-Response-by-MDDUS
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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 GMC guidance on record keeping.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ is completing an online course in record keeping and has also taken this opportunity to review the GMC’s guidance on record keeping.”

Source location

2018-0204-Response-by-MDDUS
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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 further investigations were considered necessary because there were no clinical signs indicating a need at the time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ felt that she provided a high standard of care to Dr Worthington at this consultation; having insisted that he attended the Practice for a face to face consultation and the carrying out a detailed assessment. ████████ clinical opinion at the time was that there were no untoward signs of head injury and there were no clinical signs at the time to suggest that any further investigations were needed. ████████ had listened to Dr Worthington’s chest and concluded that the lungs were clear.”

Source location

2018-0204-Response-by-MDDUS
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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

An x-ray was not considered indicated at the time because there was no midline lumbar spine bony tenderness, although this assessment was later reconsidered.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When ████████ examined Dr Worthington she did not feel that an x-ray of the ribs/lumbar spine was indicated given that Dr Worthington was not suffering from any midline lumbar spine bony tenderness. In retrospect however, ████████ accepts that an x-ray may well have picked up the fractures sustained by Dr Worthington which in turn may have led to a different outcome. Having reflected on this aspect of the case, ████████ is now more likely to send patients of a similar age for x-rays in future after any significant trauma.”

Source location

2018-0204-Response-by-MDDUS
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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.1

  1. 1

    Discuss the importance of providing detailed reports to the Coroner at Practice-wide level.

    Stated by Recipient name withheldStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2018.

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 the importance of providing detailed reports to the Coroner at Practice-wide level.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, ████████ also now appreciates the importance of providing a detailed report to the Coroner when requested and this point has also been discussed at a Practice-wide level.”

Source location

2018-0204-Response-by-MDDUS
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026