PFD report

RITA GIULIANNA NICOLA BRITTEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 May 2022•West Yorkshire (Western)

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 raised1

  1. Lack of clear national emergency and resuscitation guidance for choking emergencies where conventional abdominal thrusts are not possible or effective
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably respond to patient breathing emergencies
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.6

  1. Action

    Teach healthcare professionals to use laryngoscopes and Magill’s forceps for foreign-body removal under direct vision in the advanced life support course.

    Stated by Resuscitation Council UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2022.
  2. Action

    Assess abdominal-thrust alternatives for people with increased body mass and exclude supine abdominal thrusts from guidance because of safety and effectiveness concerns.

    Stated by Resuscitation Council UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2022.
  3. Action

    Set out a stepwise choking-management approach in basic life support guidance, including chest compressions when abdominal thrusts fail or cannot be administered.

    Stated by Resuscitation Council UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2022.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Resuscitation Council UK has addressed all concerns raised in the report.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Lack of clear national emergency and resuscitation guidance for choking emergencies where conventional abdominal thrusts are not possible or effective

Wider context from the report

“The concern is of want of clear guidance on the steps to be taken to most effectively rescue the individual from the urgent and developing choking emergency when that individual does not conform to the competent adult to whom conventional abdominal thrusts are possible or might be effectively applied. In particular, this concern relates to but is not limited to the overweight/obese/bariatric individual (however that may be best described). a) There should be clear national emergency /resuscitation guidelines for dealing effectively with choking incidents where the individual is overweight/obese or otherwise where “conventional abdominal thrusts” are not possible or are less able to be effectively applied. In Mrs Britten’s case a significant element of early rescue techniques was compromised. It is perceived this will be an increasing present and future risk in the UK population due to obesity. b) There should be early review and assessment of papers that discuss the efficacy (or otherwise) in such circumstances of “inversion” of the affected choking individual said to be set out in: Hubert Blaine et al in American Journal of Medicine ref, Am J Med 2010 Dec; 123 (12) And “Effect of body position on relieve of foreign body from the airway”, Artur Luczak AIMS Public Health 6(2): 154-159 And how this or similar technique(s) might have application in the Hospital/clinical setting in which this choking episode occurred. c) There should be identified and assessed any specialist equipment to assist in these circumstances. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably respond to patient breathing emergencies.

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

Teach healthcare professionals to use laryngoscopes and Magill’s forceps for foreign-body removal under direct vision in the advanced life support course.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals use a laryngoscope (a device put in the mouth with a light on the end) and Magill’s forceps (like pincers) to remove the foreign body under direct vision. Our recommendations are informed by our experience as well as published evidence demonstrating this can be an effective technique.⁴”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Assess abdominal-thrust alternatives for people with increased body mass and exclude supine abdominal thrusts from guidance because of safety and effectiveness concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Chest compressions in the supine position (on their back) typically raise intrathoracic pressure to a greater extent than abdominal thrusts.⁵ They can be delivered irrespective of the persons size as it does not require the rescuer to encircle their arms around the person as is required for abdominal thrusts.”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Set out a stepwise choking-management approach in basic life support guidance, including chest compressions when abdominal thrusts fail or cannot be administered.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Resuscitation Council UK sets out its guidance for the management of foreign body airway obstruction ('choking') in our basic life support guidelines.¹ These guidelines are drawn from the recommendations”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Add a frequently asked question to the national website explaining the position on choking management when abdominal thrusts are not possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In preparing our guidance we considered the use of abdominal thrusts with the person lying on their back but decided not to include them given that chest compressions are probably more effective and our assessment that there is a higher risk life threatening abdominal injuries from the use of the abdominal thrust.”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Include immediate availability of laryngoscopes and Magill’s forceps in quality standards for mental health inpatient care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals use a laryngoscope (a device put in the mouth with a light on the end) and Magill’s forceps (like pincers) to remove the foreign body under direct vision. Our recommendations are informed by our experience as well as published evidence demonstrating this can be an effective technique.⁴”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Assess suction-based airway-clearance devices for safety and effectiveness and determine whether evidence supports routine use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also assessed the evidence for suction-based airway clearance devices but consider there is insufficient evidence currently about either their safety or effectiveness, to advocate for their routine use. This view is aligned with the 2022 Evidence update on this topic from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation.”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Resuscitation Council UK has addressed all concerns raised in the report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note that you also sent your Report to the Resuscitation Council UK and I have had sight of their response. I am assured that Resuscitation Council UK have addressed all the concerns raised in your Report.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Inversion or chair/table manoeuvres will not be introduced because evidence is insufficient and manual handling poses injury risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b) There should be early review and assessment of papers that discuss the efficacy (or otherwise) in such circumstances of “inversion” of the affected choking individual said to be set out in Hubert Blaine et al in American Journal of Medicine ref, Am J Med 2010 Dec; 123 (12) And “Effect of body position on relieve of foreign body from the airway”, Artur Luczak AIMS Public Health 6(2):154-159”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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 basic life support guidelines provide a stepwise choking response, including chest compressions suitable for people of any size.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Resuscitation Council UK sets out its guidance for the management of foreign body airway obstruction ('choking') in our basic life support guidelines.¹ These guidelines are drawn from the recommendations”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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.2

  1. 1

    Discuss all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group, share learning nationally and regionally, and monitor emerging trends for further review and action.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2022.
  2. 2

    Bring the reported choking-related safety concerns to the National Patient Safety Team for consideration in general safety and quality work.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2022.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

  1. 1

    The circumstances surrounding the case are not specifically within NHS England’s statutory responsibility.

    Stated by NHS EnglandOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  2. 2

    Suction-based airway clearance devices will not be routinely advocated because current evidence is insufficient on their safety and effectiveness.

    Stated by Resuscitation Council UKUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  3. 3

    Existing guidance, training and quality standards address laryngoscope and Magill’s forceps availability and use for foreign body removal.

    Stated by Resuscitation Council UKExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group, share learning nationally and regionally, and monitor emerging trends for further review and action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by a Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Bring the reported choking-related safety concerns to the National Patient Safety Team for consideration in general safety and quality work.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the circumstances surrounding this case are not specifically within NHS England’s sphere of statutory responsibility, I have brought the matters of concern to the attention of colleagues across our National Patient Safety Team (NPST) to support any general work around safety and quality of care in this area.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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 circumstances surrounding the case are not specifically within NHS England’s statutory responsibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the circumstances surrounding this case are not specifically within NHS England’s sphere of statutory responsibility, I have brought the matters of concern to the attention of colleagues across our National Patient Safety Team (NPST) to support any general work around safety and quality of care in this area.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

Suction-based airway clearance devices will not be routinely advocated because current evidence is insufficient on their safety and effectiveness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also assessed the evidence for suction-based airway clearance devices but consider there is insufficient evidence currently about either their safety or effectiveness, to advocate for their routine use. This view is aligned with the 2022 Evidence update on this topic from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation.”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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 guidance, training and quality standards address laryngoscope and Magill’s forceps availability and use for foreign body removal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals use a laryngoscope (a device put in the mouth with a light on the end) and Magill’s forceps (like pincers) to remove the foreign body under direct vision. Our recommendations are informed by our experience as well as published evidence demonstrating this can be an effective technique.⁴”

Source location

Response from Resuscitation Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026