PFD report

Gillian Baumgardt · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Feb 2024•Avon

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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. Lack of a system requiring radiologists to alert clinicians to inconsistencies before finalising their reports
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical safety-alert systems
  2. Lack of a system requiring radiologists to investigate inconsistencies in the site of injury between images
  3. Lack of a system requiring radiographers to ensure that pre-exposure markers are present in the x-ray field
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

    Implement a discrepancy-management procedure requiring senior radiographer checks, clinician notification when unresolved, and documentation of communications or corrections in reports.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 March 2024.
  2. Action

    Audit trauma hip radiographs daily, challenge non-compliance, and provide feedback to improve marker accuracy and pre-exposure marker use.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 March 2024.

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 a system requiring radiologists to alert clinicians to inconsistencies before finalising their reports

Wider context from the report

“(1)Accurate radiology is essential to avoid wrong site surgery in elderly patients with dementia suffering hip fracture; (2) There is no system requiring radiographers to ensure that pre-exposure markers are present in the x-ray field in all such patients; (3) There is no system requiring radiologists to investigate inconsistency in the site of injury between different images and to alert clinicians to the inconsistency before finalising their report in all such patients. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical safety-alert systems.

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 a system requiring radiologists to investigate inconsistencies in the site of injury between images

Wider context from the report

“(1)Accurate radiology is essential to avoid wrong site surgery in elderly patients with dementia suffering hip fracture; (2) There is no system requiring radiographers to ensure that pre-exposure markers are present in the x-ray field in all such patients; (3) There is no system requiring radiologists to investigate inconsistency in the site of injury between different images and to alert clinicians to the inconsistency before finalising their report in all such patients. ”

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

Lack of a system requiring radiographers to ensure that pre-exposure markers are present in the x-ray field

Wider context from the report

“(1)Accurate radiology is essential to avoid wrong site surgery in elderly patients with dementia suffering hip fracture; (2) There is no system requiring radiographers to ensure that pre-exposure markers are present in the x-ray field in all such patients; (3) There is no system requiring radiologists to investigate inconsistency in the site of injury between different images and to alert clinicians to the inconsistency before finalising their report in all such patients. ”

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

Implement a discrepancy-management procedure requiring senior radiographer checks, clinician notification when unresolved, and documentation of communications or corrections in reports.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Deaths Report in respect of Mrs Baumgardt, there has been a full review carried out of how we manage a discrepancy in radiographic presentation, and/or side marking. We have already put forward a number of changes to practice, which will now go through our governance sign off prior to them being fully rolled out. These changes are due to be signed off at the Imaging Governance Committee scheduled for 18 June 2024.”

Source location

Response from North Bristol NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 March 2024

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

Audit trauma hip radiographs daily, challenge non-compliance, and provide feedback to improve marker accuracy and pre-exposure marker use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, we have introduced a daily audit for the checking of trauma hip radiographs (in combination with the existing wider departmental audit of pre-exposure markers) providing a real focus on X-Ray Imaging for this patient group and presenting the opportunity to intervene should errors be noted and provide timely feedback for improvement when non-compliance is detected. Lead Radiographer Paul Hockling commenced this audit on 4 March 2024. Since then, this audit has evaluated over 1700 hip X-Ray images, all of which have been accurate in positioning, all with an anatomical marker, and an associated compliance rate of 95% for pre-exposure marker use. If there have been instances of non-compliance, these have been actively challenged with the Radiographers involved in order to bring about future quality improvement.”

Source location

Response from North Bristol NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2024

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.2

  1. 1

    Require a second radiographer to verify electronic post-exposure marker selection and positioning before trauma radiographs are submitted.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 March 2024.
  2. 2

    Evaluate and procure safer X-ray room equipment, then replace room hardware and software across the Trust, including a more prominent FLIP warning.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 March 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Repeat X-rays are not considered necessary when radiographers are confident in positioning, orientation and equipment parameters, consistent with dose-minimisation guidance.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 a second radiographer to verify electronic post-exposure marker selection and positioning before trauma radiographs are submitted.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since December 2023, the Plain Imaging department at North Bristol NHS Trust has introduced a process for checking the placement of an electronic (post exposure) marker in trauma radiographs. This is a buddy check type system, where a Radiographer colleague will record a signature to evidence they have checked the post-exposure electronic marker is accurate both in its selection and position on the X-Ray image. This method introduces a pause and check prior to the submission of X-Ray images. The signature is recorded on a Trust approved document (copy enclosed) for undertaking patient checks during X-ray procedures and it is thereafter scanned into the patient notes.”

Source location

Response from North Bristol NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2024

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

Evaluate and procure safer X-ray room equipment, then replace room hardware and software across the Trust, including a more prominent FLIP warning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“North Bristol NHS Trust is also entering a phase of capital replacement with its fleet of X-Ray rooms. We have included an evaluation of safety features as a key part in the clinical trials and procurement. Selection of a suitable system has been made for a new X-Ray room to be installed late 2024. It is predicted that improvements to the X-Ray Imaging equipment will aid Radiographers in making accurate imaging handling decisions and instructions for first time. Importantly the flip function that caused concern in this incident will have changed its warning from a small non-descript icon to a larger FLIP text notification on the X-Ray image.”

Source location

Response from North Bristol NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2024

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

Repeat X-rays are not considered necessary when radiographers are confident in positioning, orientation and equipment parameters, consistent with dose-minimisation guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At North Bristol NHS Trust it is a requirement that 100% of X-Ray images have an anatomical side marker. The Gold standard is for these to be pre-exposure markers. By way of background information, the use of pre-exposure markers involves the mechanical placement of a small metal marker onto an X-Ray detector or the patient, and it is a practice that is subject to a small failure rate. Dependent on the configuration of the patient or the Imaging equipment (patient standing or lying on X-Ray table, or X-Ray on emergency trolley) then the placement of any such marker will differ in its technical application. When the marker is physically placed on, beside, or underneath the patient, there is a possibility that the marker may move as the patient readjusts their position due to pain or discomfort attributed to their injury or illness.”

Source location

Response from North Bristol NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 6 March 2024

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