PFD report

Ann GERAGHTY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Aug 2021•Birmingham and Solihull

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 raised1

  1. Failure of cardiac monitoring alarms to remain active for certain abnormal heart rhythms
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient-monitoring alarm systems
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

    Investigated the reported alarm incident through telemetry review, configuration assessment, and on-site simulation testing.

    Stated by Philips Electronics UK LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2021.

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

  1. Position

    The telemetry system does not self-terminate red alarms and was operating as designed.

    Stated by Philips Electronics UK LimitedDisputes 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 of cardiac monitoring alarms to remain active for certain abnormal heart rhythms

Wider context from the report

“3. Medical engineers were asked to analyse the telemetry and noted that on 8 March the monitor's alarm had triggered and that it was a self-terminating alarm as the heart rhythm had corrected itself. There was no evidence that staff muted the alarm or that there was any fault with the equipment. Thus, this self-correcting function is an intended function of the monitor. 4. Following the Trust's internal investigations, it was recommended that discussion with the manufacturers of the cardiac monitoring equipment take place to establish whether the alarms can be configured in such a way that the alarm does not self-terminate when certain abnormal heart rhythms correct themselves. The evidence was that this discussion took place on 31 July 2021, but that there has been no progress since that time, with the responsibility now lying with the manufacturer (i.e. yourselves) to develop a software update or alternative system to ensure that the issue of self-terminating alarms is remedied. 5. At inquest, it could not be determined whether Phillips central monitoring stations (model number M3151) are utilised by other Trusts nationally, but given that Philips is one of the largest providers of cardiac monitoring equipment to the NHS, it is presumed that this monitoring station is deployed in other Trusts nationally. 6. I therefore have concerns that, unless immediate consideration is given to this issue by the manufacture (i.e. yourselves), there is a risk of future deaths occurring - both within the Trust and nationally within other Trusts - and will continue to exist in the future until such time as this is addressed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient-monitoring alarm systems.

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

Investigated the reported alarm incident through telemetry review, configuration assessment, and on-site simulation testing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Strip Review As the Device Manufacturer, Philips’ first contact from the Hospital in regard to this incident was on June 29, 2021. This was an informal request to investigate to a Philips Clinical Application Specialist (CAS) whilst visiting Heartlands Hospital on another matter. The question from the Matron was whether a Ventricular Standstill would cause an alarm and, if so, how long it would last. A general ECG waveform strip and an Asystole Alarm strip, printed out around the time of the incident, was emailed to the CAS on July 18, 2021. The Asystole Alarm strip showed this alarm generated at the time of the Ventricular Standstill, but without the Clinical Audit Logs, the duration of this alarm and any other actions taken around the time of this alarm are unknown.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-Philips-Healthcare_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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

The telemetry system does not self-terminate red alarms and was operating as designed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Self-Terminating Alarms Per the report, hospital Medical Engineers were asked to review the Telemetry and the hospital Medical Engineers noted that on March 8, 2021, the monitors alarm had triggered and that it was a self-terminating alarm. Philips is interpreting this description as the alarm stopped on its own accord without user interaction. Any ventricular standstill of 4-10 seconds of duration would meet the definition of Asystole which is a red arrhythmia alarm. There is not a configuration to change Asystole or any other red arrhythmia alarm to self-terminate for a Telemetry / Central Station setup. In summary, the product is not designed to self-terminate red alarms nor is Philips able to reproduce the described behavior.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-Philips-Healthcare_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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

The monitoring alarms could not self-terminate; the alarm was likely silenced by a user after the rhythm returned to normal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the Inquest, the evidence presented to you in both our internal investigation and through witness evidence, was that the alarms on the monitoring equipment had self-terminated. This was based on evidence obtained from nursing staff and our medical engineering team that the alarm had not been silenced and therefore it was assumed that it had self-terminated on Ms Geraghty’s heart rhythm returning to normal.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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.5

  1. 1

    Analysed worldwide complaints from the previous three years for similar alarm events.

    Stated by Philips Electronics UK LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2021.
  2. 2

    Explore extended local retention of trace logs to enable retrospective review.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 September 2021.
  3. 3

    Disseminate information about alarm-system functionality to cardiology staff through email and ward safety huddles.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2021.
  4. 4

    Deliver refresher training and education on monitoring equipment, human factors and alarm-fatigue prevention through a cardiology-wide Alarm Management Programme.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 September 2021.
  5. 5

    Explore with Philips whether software configuration can be altered to enable review of abnormal ECG sections when alarms are silenced.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 September 2021.

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

  1. 1

    The failure to identify the alarm episode when it occurred would not have affected the outcome of the death.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Analysed worldwide complaints from the previous three years for similar alarm events.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Complaint Review Complaints were analyzed for the last 3 years world-wide and found one other similar complaint. This complaint was a non-adverse event, it was found that the alarm had been silenced by an end user initially and was giving an alarm reminder with brief audible alerts since alarm reminders were enabled. The equipment was operating as designed.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-Philips-Healthcare_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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

Explore extended local retention of trace logs to enable retrospective review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Currently trace logs are only retained for a period of 50 days before they are removed from the system. In this case, the traces had already been removed at the point where Philips were asked to review them and so this could not assist the authors of the SI report relied upon at the Inquest Hearing. In recognition of this issue the Trust is exploring the retention of trace logs locally for an extended period which would allow for retrospective review.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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

Disseminate information about alarm-system functionality to cardiology staff through email and ward safety huddles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As soon as we became aware of the machine configuration, following the inspection undertaken by Philips, we took a number of immediate steps to raise awareness of the alarm system in place which included an email to all cardiology staff on each of our sites detailing how the alarm system functions. This information was also discussed in ward safety huddles.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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

Deliver refresher training and education on monitoring equipment, human factors and alarm-fatigue prevention through a cardiology-wide Alarm Management Programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to internal education, the Trust is working with Philips to provide additional refresher training and education to our staff around the monitoring equipment and relevant human factors in the management of the same, including efforts to avoid/minimise any risk of ‘alarm fatigue’. This will include an Alarm Management Programme across our cardiology service at all our sites.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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

Explore with Philips whether software configuration can be altered to enable review of abnormal ECG sections when alarms are silenced.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As set out above, once an alarm is silenced, there is no facility which allows for the immediate review of the abnormal ECG if no longer on view. In partnership with Philips, we will be exploring whether it is possible to alter the configuration of the software and to explore with them the possibility of putting in place a facility which allows for review of the abnormal section of the ECG at the point it is silenced.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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

The failure to identify the alarm episode when it occurred would not have affected the outcome of the death.

Verbatim wording from the response

“the ECG and therefore no further action was taken at that point. It was only on a later examination of the log that the episode became apparent. Our clinical evidence remains that this episode, and the failure to identify the same at the time, would not have affected the outcome as regards Ms Geraghty’s unfortunate death.”

Source location

2021-0288-Response-from-University-Hospitals-Birmingham-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 2021

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
2/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026