PFD report

Mr Terence John Manning · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 May 2024•Blackpool and the Fylde

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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. Failure to maintain accurate resident-specific care and dietary records
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  2. Failure to provide a pureed or soft texture diet
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable management of specialist modified diets
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.1

  1. Action

    Reinforce accurate record-keeping and require staff to check records after using the software’s repeat functionality.

    Stated by Haddon Court LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 September 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Further software changes cannot be undertaken directly; the matter has been raised with and can only be influenced through the provider.

    Stated by Haddon Court LimitedUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 maintain accurate resident-specific care and dietary records

Wider context from the report

“Mr Terence John Manning was a resident at Haddon Court from 29 June 2023. It was known to Haddon Court Rest Home, that Mr Manning had a propensity to eat quickly and to take food from other plates. Mr Manning was not being fed a pureed or soft texture diet, and entries to this effect in the care records are errors in the record keeping. These errors had been caused by carers carrying forward the details of records relating to other residents from entries made on the records of those other residents. It was noted in the evidence, that erroneous record keeping had taken place over a period of time and involved multiple carers. It was caused by carers transposing the records of one resident into the care records of another, leading to inaccuracies. I found that these matters gave rise to a risk of future death as the record keeping was inaccurate and did not reflect the foods being given to Mr Manning, and engaged my duty under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 provide a pureed or soft texture diet

Wider context from the report

“Mr Terence John Manning was a resident at Haddon Court from 29 June 2023. It was known to Haddon Court Rest Home, that Mr Manning had a propensity to eat quickly and to take food from other plates. Mr Manning was not being fed a pureed or soft texture diet, and entries to this effect in the care records are errors in the record keeping. These errors had been caused by carers carrying forward the details of records relating to other residents from entries made on the records of those other residents. It was noted in the evidence, that erroneous record keeping had taken place over a period of time and involved multiple carers. It was caused by carers transposing the records of one resident into the care records of another, leading to inaccuracies. I found that these matters gave rise to a risk of future death as the record keeping was inaccurate and did not reflect the foods being given to Mr Manning, and engaged my duty under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable management of specialist modified diets.

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

Reinforce accurate record-keeping and require staff to check records after using the software’s repeat functionality.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of our staff, we would like to reassure you that all staff have been reminded about the importance of accuracy in record keeping. We have particularly reminded the staff about the risks of using what is termed the “repeat functionality” of the software in question, and to ensure that records are checked for accuracy after use of this feature.”

Source location

Response from Haddon Court Rest Home
Page 1 · response
Published 17 September 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

Further software changes cannot be undertaken directly; the matter has been raised with and can only be influenced through the provider.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is important that carers are encouraged to record the most accurate and person-centred records as possible. Based on your input, we will review the repeat functionality in detail and consider certain categories of care to be removed from the repeat functionality. That would force users to individually report the details for each resident in those selected categories.”

Source location

Response from Haddon Court Rest Home
Page 2 · response
Published 17 September 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

Existing staff reminders, record-checking practices and other measures are considered robust enough to ensure accurate care records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of our staff, we would like to reassure you that all staff have been reminded about the importance of accuracy in record keeping. We have particularly reminded the staff about the risks of using what is termed the “repeat functionality” of the software in question, and to ensure that records are checked for accuracy after use of this feature.”

Source location

Response from Haddon Court Rest Home
Page 1 · response
Published 17 September 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