Cerith Wyn Pugh · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Jul 2016•Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an 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
4

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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. Lack of a known mechanism to override liver function testing guidance when clinically appropriate
  2. Failure to ensure that consultant referrals are seen by consultants in the first instance
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Consultant-to-Consultant referral processes
  3. Failure to undertake requested liver function tests when clinically required
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely clinically required blood testsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. Hywel Dda University LHB

    Develop a process to provide specialist advice through an alternative on-site or cross-site specialist when a single-handed consultant is absent.

  2. Hywel Dda University LHB

    Ask consultants to review referral practice and ensure consultant review, appropriate delegation and supervision.

  3. Hywel Dda University LHB

    Issue the redacted report to hospital directors across all four acute hospitals.

  4. Hywel Dda University LHB

    Remind medical staff to undertake clinically justified tests and discuss provider-declined investigations with the ordering consultant.

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 known mechanism to override liver function testing guidance when clinically appropriate

Wider context from the report

“That liver function tests were requested but the Health Board declined to undertake these for reasons of demand management on the basis that had been done some three days earlier. Expert evidence received at the inquest was highly critical of this practice. Whilst 72 hour testing is in accordance with guidance contained in guidance from the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and the Royal College of Pathologists both documents are clear that the guidance must be capable of being overridden if clinically appropriate. There was no evidence of any mechanism to override the guidance or, if such guidance existed, that it was known to 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 ensure that consultant referrals are seen by consultants in the first instance

Wider context from the report

“That referrals to consultants at Withybush General Hospital are routinely being dealt with by middle grade doctors and, if in the opinion of the middle grade doctor, the matter then needs a referral to a consultant only then is the matter passed to a consultant. All consultant referrals should be seen by consultants in the first instance. Expert evidence received at the inquest described this practice as not being best practice. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Consultant-to-Consultant referral processes.

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 undertake requested liver function tests when clinically required

Wider context from the report

“That liver function tests were requested but the Health Board declined to undertake these for reasons of demand management on the basis that had been done some three days earlier. Expert evidence received at the inquest was highly critical of this practice. Whilst 72 hour testing is in accordance with guidance contained in guidance from the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and the Royal College of Pathologists both documents are clear that the guidance must be capable of being overridden if clinically appropriate. There was no evidence of any mechanism to override the guidance or, if such guidance existed, that it was known to staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely clinically required blood tests; Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests.

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

Develop a process to provide specialist advice through an alternative on-site or cross-site specialist when a single-handed consultant is absent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for your report into the death of Cerith Wyn Pugh. As a result of your concerns we have issued your redacted report to the Hospital Directors (lead doctors) in each of the four acute hospitals and through them we have asked each consultant to review their practice and to ensure that consultant referrals are directly reviewed by the consultant or that the review involves proactive delegation where appropriate, and consultant supervision. Some of our services are led by a single handed consultant on a particular site and this does provide some challenges when this individual is on leave. We are actively looking at the process we need to put in place in these cases so that specialist advice can always be accessed either by an alternative consultant on site, or a similar specialist on a different site.”

Source location

2016-0271-Response-by-University-health-Board
Page 1 · response
Published 27 July 2016

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

Ask consultants to review referral practice and ensure consultant review, appropriate delegation and supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for your report into the death of Cerith Wyn Pugh. As a result of your concerns we have issued your redacted report to the Hospital Directors (lead doctors) in each of the four acute hospitals and through them we have asked each consultant to review their practice and to ensure that consultant referrals are directly reviewed by the consultant or that the review involves proactive delegation where appropriate, and consultant supervision. Some of our services are led by a single handed consultant on a particular site and this does provide some challenges when this individual is on leave. We are actively looking at the process we need to put in place in these cases so that specialist advice can always be accessed either by an alternative consultant on site, or a similar specialist on a different site.”

Source location

2016-0271-Response-by-University-health-Board
Page 1 · response
Published 27 July 2016

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

Issue the redacted report to hospital directors across all four acute hospitals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for your report into the death of Cerith Wyn Pugh. As a result of your concerns we have issued your redacted report to the Hospital Directors (lead doctors) in each of the four acute hospitals and through them we have asked each consultant to review their practice and to ensure that consultant referrals are directly reviewed by the consultant or that the review involves proactive delegation where appropriate, and consultant supervision. Some of our services are led by a single handed consultant on a particular site and this does provide some challenges when this individual is on leave. We are actively looking at the process we need to put in place in these cases so that specialist advice can always be accessed either by an alternative consultant on site, or a similar specialist on a different site.”

Source location

2016-0271-Response-by-University-health-Board
Page 1 · response
Published 27 July 2016

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

Remind medical staff to undertake clinically justified tests and discuss provider-declined investigations with the ordering consultant.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also reminded medical staff that where test requests are made on clinically justifiable grounds these should be undertaken regardless of guidance regarding repeating tests and in the event of an investigation being declined by a provider the matter must be discussed with the Consultant whose team has ordered the request.”

Source location

2016-0271-Response-by-University-health-Board
Page 1 · response
Published 27 July 2016

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