Joseph Lawrence Parker · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Jun 2024•Avon

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
5

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
11

Described in 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 raised2

  1. Failure to endorse and disseminate PUMA airway management guidance
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable capnography use during intubation and resuscitation
  2. Lack of changes following previous Prevention of Future Deaths Reports concerning unrecognised oesophageal intubation

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.11

  1. NHS England

    Make a decision on next steps following the completed consultation, including whether the Never Event definition or list should change.

  2. NHS England

    Review the Never Events Framework and list to clarify their future direction regarding unrecognised oesophageal intubation.

  3. NHS England

    Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across national and regional NHS services.

  4. Royal College of Emergency Medicine

    Improve existing guidance to emphasise waveform capnography for early recognition of oesophageal intubation.

  5. Royal College of Emergency Medicine

    Continue collaborating with the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine on emergency and critical care guidance.

  6. Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland) and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Royal College of Anaesthetists

    Advocate in the NHS England consultation response for unrecognised oesophageal intubation to remain nationally reportable.

  7. Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland) and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Royal College of Anaesthetists

    Continue emphasizing capnography and the “no trace = wrong place” message in future safety communications.

  8. Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland) and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Royal College of Anaesthetists

    Use findings from the airway recommendations project to focus activity supporting anaesthesia departments to make improvements.

  9. Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland) and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Royal College of Anaesthetists

    Disseminate key PUMA guideline messages to members through safety communications and events.

  10. Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland) and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Royal College of Anaesthetists

    Create and promote resources enabling regular multidisciplinary team training during the normal working day.

  11. Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland) and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Royal College of Anaesthetists

    Undertake a national project examining implementation of airway-related recommendations, including those addressing unrecognised oesophageal intubation.

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

  1. NHS England

    Current capnography mitigations do not meet the definition of a Never Event, so unrecognised oesophageal intubation is not currently listed.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. NHS England

    Some concerns about PUMA guideline endorsement and dissemination fall outside NHS England’s national policy or programme remit.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  3. NHS England

    The Royal Colleges are better placed to respond to concerns outside NHS England’s national policy or programme remit.

    Redirects 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

Failure to endorse and disseminate PUMA airway management guidance

Wider context from the report

“(1) I have been told that capnography is the only reliable test, the gold standard, to confirm that a tracheal tube is in the right place, that no other test should override it. (2) That the more recent PUMA (Project for Universal Management of Airways) guidelines state, the detection of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide using waveform capnography is the mainstay for excluding oesophageal placement of an intended tracheal tube. The PUMA guidance deserves the widest possible endorsement and dissemination which has not happened yet. (3) Unrecognised oesophageal intubation was a “Never Event” by NHS England but is no longer. (4) There have already been a number of Prevention of Futures Deaths Reports written by Coroner’s in relation to this concern but to date, I am told there have been no changes. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable capnography use during intubation and resuscitation.

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 changes following previous Prevention of Future Deaths Reports concerning unrecognised oesophageal intubation

Wider context from the report

“(1) I have been told that capnography is the only reliable test, the gold standard, to confirm that a tracheal tube is in the right place, that no other test should override it. (2) That the more recent PUMA (Project for Universal Management of Airways) guidelines state, the detection of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide using waveform capnography is the mainstay for excluding oesophageal placement of an intended tracheal tube. The PUMA guidance deserves the widest possible endorsement and dissemination which has not happened yet. (3) Unrecognised oesophageal intubation was a “Never Event” by NHS England but is no longer. (4) There have already been a number of Prevention of Futures Deaths Reports written by Coroner’s in relation to this concern but to date, I am told there have been no changes. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Make a decision on next steps following the completed consultation, including whether the Never Event definition or list should change.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The mitigations used to avoid oesophageal intubation, primarily the use of capnography, which is included in the 2021 AAGBI recommendations referenced above, does not meet the definition of a Never Event. As part of NHS England’s current work to review the Never Events Framework and list of Never Events, we will be clarifying the future direction for the Never Events Framework. Since the completion of a widespread consultation in May 2024, a decision will be made on next steps which will determine if the current definition of a Never Event should change and whether this has implications for including oesophageal intubation on any future list. Further information on the consultation can be found here and NHS England can update the Coroner in due course if this would assist.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Review the Never Events Framework and list to clarify their future direction regarding unrecognised oesophageal intubation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The mitigations used to avoid oesophageal intubation, primarily the use of capnography, which is included in the 2021 AAGBI recommendations referenced above, does not meet the definition of a Never Event. As part of NHS England’s current work to review the Never Events Framework and list of Never Events, we will be clarifying the future direction for the Never Events Framework. Since the completion of a widespread consultation in May 2024, a decision will be made on next steps which will determine if the current definition of a Never Event should change and whether this has implications for including oesophageal intubation on any future list. Further information on the consultation can be found here and NHS England can update the Coroner in due course if this would assist.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Joseph, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Improve existing guidance to emphasise waveform capnography for early recognition of oesophageal intubation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These and other standards and recommendations currently form part of an existing document which provides a framework for collaborative working between Emergency Medicine (EM) and Intensive Care Medicine (ICM) [1]. As a specialty we will continue to work closely with the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and seek to improve upon our existing guidance to highlight the importance of waveform capnography in the early recognition of oesophageal intubation.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Emergency Medicine
Page 1 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Continue collaborating with the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine on emergency and critical care guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These and other standards and recommendations currently form part of an existing document which provides a framework for collaborative working between Emergency Medicine (EM) and Intensive Care Medicine (ICM) [1]. As a specialty we will continue to work closely with the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and seek to improve upon our existing guidance to highlight the importance of waveform capnography in the early recognition of oesophageal intubation.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Emergency Medicine
Page 1 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Advocate in the NHS England consultation response for unrecognised oesophageal intubation to remain nationally reportable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report mentioned that unrecognised oesophageal intubation was a suspended never event. We are aware that the never events framework is under review by NHS England. In our consultation response, we were clear that, whatever changes are made to the framework, we believe that unrecognised oesophageal intubation should be a nationally reportable incident, so that lessons can be learned from every tragic event to prevent its occurrence in the future.”

Source location

Response from Association of Anaesthetists, RCOA and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine - Joint Response
Page 2 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Continue emphasizing capnography and the “no trace = wrong place” message in future safety communications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report highlights that “capnography is the only reliable test, the gold standard, to confirm that a tracheal tube is in the right place and that no other test should override it.” We agree entirely and this is made clear in the Association of Anaesthetists’ “Standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery”¹. The message has been emphasised in our previous communications to members on the topic² and will continue to be at the heart of future communications. Our previous campaigns, in 2018 and again in 2021/22, have emphasised the “no trace = wrong place” message³. The Project for Universal Management of Airways (PUMA) consensus guidelines for the prevention of unrecognised oesophageal intubation⁴, emphasise “sustained exhaled carbon dioxide” as the test to exclude potential oesophageal intubation.”

Source location

Response from Association of Anaesthetists, RCOA and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine - Joint Response
Page 1 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Use findings from the airway recommendations project to focus activity supporting anaesthesia departments to make improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“intubation. We will use the information gained from this project to focus our activity to support departments of anaesthesia to make improvements.”

Source location

Response from Association of Anaesthetists, RCOA and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine - Joint Response
Page 2 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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 key PUMA guideline messages to members through safety communications and events.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This reflects the fact that in some cases of oesophageal intubation the capnograph trace has not been flat, but instead attenuated and abnormal. Our organisations are all supportive of the PUMA guidelines and plan to disseminate the key messages to our members through our safety communications and events. SALG publishes regular Patient Safety Updates, which are distributed to all members of the Association of Anaesthetists and Royal College of Anaesthetists. FICM publishes regular Safety Bulletins, which are distributed to all their members.”

Source location

Response from Association of Anaesthetists, RCOA and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine - Joint Response
Page 1 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Create and promote resources enabling regular multidisciplinary team training during the normal working day.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Guidelines are in place, but in order for them to be successful in preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation, we also recognise the importance of human-factors based strategies to enable their use, as outlined in the Association of Anaesthetists’ guidance “Implementing human factors in anaesthesia”⁵. In particular, multidisciplinary team training in the management of emergency situations is key in preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation. As well as helping to ensure that individuals are familiar with the relevant algorithms, by rehearsing emergency drills, teams practise non-technical skills and learn how to function well as a whole within a flattened hierarchy, which contribute to safe and efficient task performance.⁵ Regular, multidisciplinary team training is one of the standards for the RCoA’s Anaesthesia Clinical Services Accreditation (ACSA) scheme.”

Source location

Response from Association of Anaesthetists, RCOA and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine - Joint Response
Page 1 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Undertake a national project examining implementation of airway-related recommendations, including those addressing unrecognised oesophageal intubation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RCoA’s Quality Improvement Network is currently undertaking a project to look at the implementation of airway-related recommendations across the country, including those related to unrecognised oesophageal”

Source location

Response from Association of Anaesthetists, RCOA and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine - Joint Response
Page 1 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Current capnography mitigations do not meet the definition of a Never Event, so unrecognised oesophageal intubation is not currently listed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The mitigations used to avoid oesophageal intubation, primarily the use of capnography, which is included in the 2021 AAGBI recommendations referenced above, does not meet the definition of a Never Event. As part of NHS England’s current work to review the Never Events Framework and list of Never Events, we will be clarifying the future direction for the Never Events Framework. Since the completion of a widespread consultation in May 2024, a decision will be made on next steps which will determine if the current definition of a Never Event should change and whether this has implications for including oesophageal intubation on any future list. Further information on the consultation can be found here and NHS England can update the Coroner in due course if this would assist.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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

Some concerns about PUMA guideline endorsement and dissemination fall outside NHS England’s national policy or programme remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My response focuses on those areas of concern that fall under the remit of NHS England’s national policy or programmes. NHS England notes that you have also sent your Report to the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA), Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (FICM), and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM), who are better placed to respond to your matters of concern. NHS England will carefully consider their responses to the Coroner in due course.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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 Royal Colleges are better placed to respond to concerns outside NHS England’s national policy or programme remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My response focuses on those areas of concern that fall under the remit of NHS England’s national policy or programmes. NHS England notes that you have also sent your Report to the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA), Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (FICM), and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM), who are better placed to respond to your matters of concern. NHS England will carefully consider their responses to the Coroner in due course.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 31 July 2024

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
5/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026