PFD report

Theresa Margaret Feehan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Feb 2019•Inner West London

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised6

  1. Failure to correlate the medication list with the active problem list
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable medication reconciliation across care transitions
  2. Lack of a system to address harmful medication interactions and redundant treatment
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to identify clinically significant medication risks
  3. Inadequate recording and coding of relevant medical history on the active problem list
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of patients' clinically relevant medical history
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Inspections ultimately found no concerns in the areas identified, so there was no basis for enforcement action.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionDisputes 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 correlate the medication list with the active problem list

Wider context from the report

“3. That there appears to be little correlation between the medication list and the active problem list such that it would make it difficult for a reviewing doctor to understand why a patient was on a particular medication and thus challenge its continuation or dosage appropriately, thus putting patients at risk. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable medication reconciliation across care transitions.

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 to address harmful medication interactions and redundant treatment

Wider context from the report

“4. That there appears to be no clear system for identifying medications which may interact to the detriment of the patient or no system to address such issues should they arise such as reducing or stopping redundant treatment thus putting patients at risk. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to identify clinically significant medication risks.

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

Inadequate recording and coding of relevant medical history on the active problem list

Wider context from the report

“2. That the recording and coding of relevant medical history on the active problem list is inadequate thus putting patients at risk ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of patients' clinically relevant medical history.

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

Insufficient supervision of administrative staff

Wider context from the report

“5. That administration systems within the practice should be audited to determine whether they are adequate and the work of the administrative staff sufficiently supervised, such that patients are not put at risk. ”

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 clear system for identifying harmful medication interactions

Wider context from the report

“4. That there appears to be no clear system for identifying medications which may interact to the detriment of the patient or no system to address such issues should they arise such as reducing or stopping redundant treatment thus putting patients at risk. ”

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

Inadequate medication review systems

Wider context from the report

“1. That the system of medication review within the practice is inadequate putting patients at risk. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably conduct clinically required medication reviews.

Open source report

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

Inspections ultimately found no concerns in the areas identified, so there was no basis for enforcement action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The provider made significant challenges to the findings we made. We accepted those challenges and decided there was no basis for us to take enforcement action. We also carried out a full and comprehensive rated inspection in June 2019. I attach copies of the reports of both of these inspections. They are also available on our website under the “All reports” link at https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-549237033.”

Source location

2019-0070-Amended-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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.3

  1. 1

    Publish and provide copies of both inspection reports, including availability on the CQC website.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  2. 2

    Carry out a full comprehensive rated inspection of Lisson Grove Health Centre.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  3. 3

    Complete a focused inspection of Lisson Grove Health Centre in response to the reported concerns.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.

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

Publish and provide copies of both inspection reports, including availability on the CQC website.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The provider made significant challenges to the findings we made. We accepted those challenges and decided there was no basis for us to take enforcement action. We also carried out a full and comprehensive rated inspection in June 2019. I attach copies of the reports of both of these inspections. They are also available on our website under the “All reports” link at https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-549237033.”

Source location

2019-0070-Amended-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Carry out a full comprehensive rated inspection of Lisson Grove Health Centre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The provider made significant challenges to the findings we made. We accepted those challenges and decided there was no basis for us to take enforcement action. We also carried out a full and comprehensive rated inspection in June 2019. I attach copies of the reports of both of these inspections. They are also available on our website under the “All reports” link at https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-549237033.”

Source location

2019-0070-Amended-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Complete a focused inspection of Lisson Grove Health Centre in response to the reported concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In our response we provided provisional information following our focused inspection of Lisson Grove Health Centre in March 2019. This inspection had been triggered by the concerns raised in your prevention of future death report. We made clear in our letter the findings were at draft stage and the provider had not at that stage had an opportunity to challenge the findings, in line with our fairness obligations under the public law principles. I am now writing to update you.”

Source location

2019-0070-Amended-Response-from-Care-Quality-Commission-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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