PFD report

Sarah YOUNG · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Feb 2020•Bedfordshire and Luton

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
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 provide timely Medical Team review and diagnostic support after referral
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely medical review of emergency-department patientsPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely specialist review in emergency departments
  2. Delays in obtaining Neurological opinion alongside relevant imaging
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable neurological referral pathways
  3. Failure of the standard referral system to reliably transmit Bedford Neurologist referrals
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably refer patients to required specialist services
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 timely Medical Team review and diagnostic support after referral

Wider context from the report

“(1) Although Sarah was referred to the Medical Team at 20:00 on 9 April 2019 whilst she still in the Emergency Department awaiting the CT venogram, she was never seen by them. The evidence to the Inquest from the Medical Registrar on call that evening was that “if a decision to admit to ITU is made, an immediate or urgent medical review is not required, as the patient is under the direct care of the ITU team” yet the evidence from one of the ITU Consultants in charge of her care was that the ITU Team do rely on the Medical Team to assist in progressing a diagnosis( including involving a Neurologist where required) and that it was a matter of regret for him that there had not been more Medical advice in this case; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely medical review of emergency-department patients; Failure to provide timely specialist review in emergency departments.

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

Delays in obtaining Neurological opinion alongside relevant imaging

Wider context from the report

“(2) Although the Neurosurgical Team had advised the Bedford Emergency Department Team at 19.45 hours on 9 April 2019 that a Neurological opinion should be sought alongside the CT venogram, such opinion was not sought until 16.15 hours on 10 April 2019 (the following day) and, even then, only after further prompting from the Neurosurgical Team. The Inquest heard that a Neurological opinion was likely to have involved immediate consultation with the on-call Neuroradiologist which would have resulted in a much earlier diagnosis and treatment of the Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable neurological referral pathways.

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 of the standard referral system to reliably transmit Bedford Neurologist referrals

Wider context from the report

“(3) The Inquest heard that referrals to the Bedford Neurologist (only available during Monday - Friday working hours) are not always picked up through the standard referral system and often require personal 1:1 contact between clinicians. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably refer patients to required specialist services.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.