PFD report

Alan Tear · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Oct 2015•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 of nursing staff to follow post-operative instructions
  2. Failure to report post-operative observations to medical staff when EWS is rising
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably communicate clinically significant patient observations to medical staffPart of recurring concern: Unreliable post-operative monitoring and clinical review
  3. Lack of clarity in communication between the Intervention Radiology team and nursing staff about observations to be carried out
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of patient-care information between clinical staff
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.5

  1. Action

    Provide continuous teaching for Clinical Management Group staff on interventional radiology procedures, complications, observation frequencies, complication recognition and escalation.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 October 2015.
  2. Action

    Rewrite the EWS training package to clarify actions when scores are unreliable or require escalation, incorporating learning from the case.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 October 2015.
  3. Action

    Redesign the observation-frequency handover sheet by procedure type and require signatures from interventional radiology and receiving-ward nurses at the radiology theatre.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 October 2015.

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 nursing staff to follow post-operative instructions

Wider context from the report

“1. Post-operative instructions were not followed by the nursing staff. ”

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

Failure to report post-operative observations to medical staff when EWS is rising

Wider context from the report

“2. Post-operative observations were not reported to medical staff as required when the EWS was rising. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably communicate clinically significant patient observations to medical staff; Unreliable post-operative monitoring and clinical review.

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 clarity in communication between the Intervention Radiology team and nursing staff about observations to be carried out

Wider context from the report

“3. It was not clear that the Intervention Radiology team knew or understood what observations the nursing staff would carry out and the communication between the teams needs to be reconsidered. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of patient-care information between clinical staff.

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

Provide continuous teaching for Clinical Management Group staff on interventional radiology procedures, complications, observation frequencies, complication recognition and escalation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, as part of our wider learning, our Clinical Director for the Clinical Management Group (CMG) will, along with the Medical Lead for Imaging ensure that there is a continuous teaching session for CMG staff on the issue of Interventional Radiology for Surgical patients; describing the technique, complications, frequency of observation for each different procedure, identification of complications and escalation. This will have occurred before the end of December 2015.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2015

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

Rewrite the EWS training package to clarify actions when scores are unreliable or require escalation, incorporating learning from the case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However we remain committed to improving our on-going education at the Trust on the EWS scoring tool. Our Interim Deputy Medical Director and Assistant Chief Nurse are currently rewriting the EWS training package and will use what occurred in this case to ensure that clinical staff are given clarity on the actions that they must take when there is either doubt as to the reliability of any particular EWS score or the EWS score is considered to require escalation. This work is due to be completed by the end of March 2016.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 14 October 2015

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

Redesign the observation-frequency handover sheet by procedure type and require signatures from interventional radiology and receiving-ward nurses at the radiology theatre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of this inquest we will be redesigning the sheet which documents the required frequency of observations to be undertaken on the receiving ward. The sheet and required frequency will vary according to the type of the procedure performed. To optimise the hand over the sheet will be signed by the Interventional radiology nurse and receiving ward at the radiology theatre. Our Medical Lead for Imaging, in consultation with surgical colleagues, will have completed this work by the end of December 2015.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2015

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

Meet ward nursing staff to discuss the incident and reinforce checking required observation frequencies on handover sheets.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As an immediate action after the inquest the matron met with all nursing staff on the ward to discuss what had occurred in this case. In particular ward staff”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 14 October 2015

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

Audit compliance with nursing instructions after radiology procedures, repeat the audit according to findings, and report results to the Clinical Management Group Board.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Furthermore our Head of Nursing for the CMG will ensure that there is an audit undertaken to monitor the compliance with nursing instructions following radiology procedures. This audit will have been completed by the end of November 2015 and repeated thereafter according to its findings. The findings will be reported to the CMG Board.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2015

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.1

  1. 1

    Introduce electronic recording of nursing observations that alerts staff when required observations have not been undertaken.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 October 2015.

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

  1. 1

    Existing practice of repeating potentially unreliable readings and relying on the valid EWS score will not be changed.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustExisting 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

Introduce electronic recording of nursing observations that alerts staff when required observations have not been undertaken.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With a view to strengthening our systems and processes generally the Trust intends to introduce a system for electronically recording nursing observations. This system (E-ob)s is expected to be in place by the end of March 2016 and is led jointly by our Interim Deputy Medical Director and Assistant Chief Nurse. Once implemented, this system will issue alerts when required highlighting when observations have not been undertaken.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2015

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 practice of repeating potentially unreliable readings and relying on the valid EWS score will not be changed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you will be aware EWS is a tool to assist clinicians to identify deteriorating patients. It relies on various parameters (including blood pressure) being measured and scored. However it does not replace clinical judgement and its usefulness depends on the reliability of the scores identified. Where there is genuine and immediate doubt as to the reliability of any particular reading our practice is to repeat that reading and place reliance on the score which is considered to be valid. We do not consider that it would sensible to change this practice and will not be doing so.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2015

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