David SCOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 May 2024•Cheshire

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised1

  1. Failure to report potentially clinically significant vascular calcification in x-ray reports
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically significant diagnostic findings to patients and care providers

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    Present the case and concerns to the Cheshire and Merseyside Radiology Imaging Network.

  2. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    Conduct a joint Emergency Department and Radiology audit of the quality of clinical information on imaging requests, with repeat frequency determined after the baseline audit.

  3. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    Provide joint Radiology and Emergency Department education on the required standards and quality of clinical information in imaging requests.

  4. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    Provide Emergency Department medical staff with training on assessing leg wounds and performing vascular assessments for chronic limb wounds.

  5. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    Discuss the case and associated reporting issues at the Radiology Governance Meeting.

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

  1. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    Mild vascular calcification does not correlate with peripheral vascular disease symptoms or severity, and knee X-rays are not used to diagnose it.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    Not reporting mild vascular calcification without clinical information suggesting peripheral vascular disease complies with national radiology standards and practice.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so 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 report potentially clinically significant vascular calcification in x-ray reports

Wider context from the report

“Having considered the second edition of the Standards for Interpretation and Reporting of Imaging Investigations produced by the Royal College of Radiologists and having heard oral evidence from a Consultant Vascular Surgeon that a non-healing wound in addition to vascular calcification evident on x-ray can be a clinical indicator for Peripheral Vascular Disease which would then trigger a further process of investigation, I am concerned that a finding that 'could be normal' and so conversely 'could be abnormal' was not recorded. I am further concerned and that something of this nature, would not be expected to be noted in the x-ray report, it appearing to be considered standard practice for it not to be reported by both a Consultant in Emergency Medicine and Consultant Radiologist within Warrington Hospital. This does not appear to be consistent with expected standards and poses a risk that future deaths may occur. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically significant diagnostic findings to patients and care providers.

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

Present the case and concerns to the Cheshire and Merseyside Radiology Imaging Network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Radiology Team have tabled an agenda item at the Radiology Governance Meeting for wider discussion of this case and associated issues as outlined above. This meeting is due to take place on 19 August 2024. Our Radiologists will also present this case and your concerns to the Cheshire and Merseyside Radiology Imaging Network (CAMRIN), a collaboration of 12 Trusts from across the Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care System (ICS) that have come together to work on a large-scale change programme that aims to improve radiology services for patients and staff. This meeting is due to take place on 17 September 2024.”

Source location

Response from Warrington Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 31 May 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

Conduct a joint Emergency Department and Radiology audit of the quality of clinical information on imaging requests, with repeat frequency determined after the baseline audit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To ensure that change is sustained and to identify further areas for learning and improvement, the Emergency Department and Radiology Department will undertake a joint clinical audit of the quality of clinical information on imaging investigation requests at a frequency to be determined based on the findings of the first baseline audit.”

Source location

Response from Warrington Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 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

Provide joint Radiology and Emergency Department education on the required standards and quality of clinical information in imaging requests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Effective reporting is dependant on accurate and complete clinical information on imaging requests, which were lacking in this case. Our Radiology Department will work with the Emergency Department to undertake specific education and teaching with regards to the standards and quality of clinical information required to ensure effective reporting.”

Source location

Response from Warrington Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 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

Provide Emergency Department medical staff with training on assessing leg wounds and performing vascular assessments for chronic limb wounds.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To reduce the risk of a future similar omission, we will ensure that all of our Emergency Department Medical Team receive further training and education in the clinical assessment of leg wounds and vascular assessment of patients with chronic limb wounds.”

Source location

Response from Warrington Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 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

Discuss the case and associated reporting issues at the Radiology Governance Meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Radiology Team have tabled an agenda item at the Radiology Governance Meeting for wider discussion of this case and associated issues as outlined above. This meeting is due to take place on 19 August 2024. Our Radiologists will also present this case and your concerns to the Cheshire and Merseyside Radiology Imaging Network (CAMRIN), a collaboration of 12 Trusts from across the Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care System (ICS) that have come together to work on a large-scale change programme that aims to improve radiology services for patients and staff. This meeting is due to take place on 17 September 2024.”

Source location

Response from Warrington Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 31 May 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

Mild vascular calcification does not correlate with peripheral vascular disease symptoms or severity, and knee X-rays are not used to diagnose it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As stated in the written evidence submitted to the inquest, vascular calcification is common in older patients and is often seen incidentally on imaging studies in patients without clinical features of PVD. Studies suggest the prevalence of vascular calcification increases with age, and it is not routinely reported unless clinical information on the imaging request is suggestive of a clinical diagnosis of PVD, the calcification is severe or is associated with an aneurysm. The presence and extent of vascular calcification on X-ray does not correlate with PVD symptoms or severity and for this reason, X-rays are not used in the diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease.”

Source location

Response from Warrington Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 31 May 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

Not reporting mild vascular calcification without clinical information suggesting peripheral vascular disease complies with national radiology standards and practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Mr Scott’s knee X-Ray showed mild vascular calcification without evidence of an aneurysm and therefore, in the absence of clinical information suggestive of PVD on the imaging request, this finding was not mentioned in the report. Our Radiologists confirm this is in line with national practice and guidance (the Standards for Interpreting and Reporting of Imaging Investigations produced by the Royal College of Radiologists).”

Source location

Response from Warrington Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 31 May 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