PFD report

Glenys Pollitt · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 7 Sep 2017•Manchester South

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
4

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

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 raised4

  1. Unclear process for escalation to consultant level and critical care
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable escalation policy for care concerns
  2. Lack of an ongoing programme for reinforcing clinical lessons
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learning
  3. Inconsistent use of high-resolution screens for viewing x-rays
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable chest X-ray imaging and interpretation
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.4

  1. Action

    Develop an implementation plan for rolling out the National Early Warning System independently of the delayed electronic patient record launch.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 October 2017.
  2. Action

    Use the case in future training programmes for junior clinical staff in Emergency Department and Acute Medicine.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 October 2017.
  3. Action

    Complete morbidity and mortality discussions in Emergency Department and Acute Medicine to share and learn from the case.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 October 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Standard Emergency Department screens are sufficiently high resolution, and screen resolution was not identified as affecting diagnosis.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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

Unclear process for escalation to consultant level and critical care

Wider context from the report

“3. The process for escalation to consultant level and critical care was unclear. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable escalation policy for care concerns.

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 an ongoing programme for reinforcing clinical lessons

Wider context from the report

“2. At the inquest, the evidence given was that the clinicians had seen what they expected to see on the x ray rather than seeing the whole picture shown on the x ray. It was unclear what ongoing programme was in place for reinforcing the lessons learnt from this case amongst clinicians; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learning.

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

Inconsistent use of high-resolution screens for viewing x-rays

Wider context from the report

“1. It was accepted during the evidence that the x ray should ideally be viewed on a high-resolution screen rather than an standard screen. This increased the likelihood of significant abnormalities being detected. There are a number of such high-resolution screens for viewing of x rays. The evidence indicated that there was differing practice across the hospital as to when such screens were used and by whom. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable chest X-ray imaging and interpretation.

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 assess the whole x-ray image rather than only expected findings

Wider context from the report

“2. At the inquest, the evidence given was that the clinicians had seen what they expected to see on the x ray rather than seeing the whole picture shown on the x ray. It was unclear what ongoing programme was in place for reinforcing the lessons learnt from this case amongst clinicians; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable chest X-ray imaging and interpretation.

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 an implementation plan for rolling out the National Early Warning System independently of the delayed electronic patient record launch.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the inquest the patient’s daughter asked why the Trust used the EWS pathway not the National Early Warning System (NEWS) as she believed the patient would have been escalated to the critical care team sooner based on the NEWS pathway. The evidence given in response was that though we were not using NEWS we had intended to change to it from 30/09/2017 when our new electronic patient record (ePR) was launched. Unfortunately this launch has been delayed and we do not have a definitive new launch date. Therefore our Assistant Director of Nursing, who has been tasked with rolling out NEWS across the Trust, is currently working up an implementation plan that is not reliant on the launch of our ePR.”

Source location

2017-0228-Response-by-Stockport-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 October 2017

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 the case in future training programmes for junior clinical staff in Emergency Department and Acute Medicine.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Both departments have confirmed that they intend to use this case for future training of junior clinical staff in their ongoing training programmes.”

Source location

2017-0228-Response-by-Stockport-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 October 2017

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

Complete morbidity and mortality discussions in Emergency Department and Acute Medicine to share and learn from the case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Both the Emergency Department team and the Acute Medicine team have completed morbidity & mortality discussions regarding this case – completed on 15/02/2017 and 24/05/2017 respectively. These are perfect opportunities for cases to be shared with clinicians across all grades to review and learn from a case.”

Source location

2017-0228-Response-by-Stockport-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 October 2017

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

Draft guidance identifying high-resolution screens, access arrangements and support across the Trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust’s Radiology Systems Manager has confirmed that the standard screens available in ED are of a high enough resolution to view chest x ray images. The Radiology Systems Manager has drafted a document, which is awaiting their Business Group Quality Governance Board sign off, to list where all high resolution screens are within the Trust, how to access them and how to gain support to view images on them, should it be required.”

Source location

2017-0228-Response-by-Stockport-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 6 October 2017

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

Standard Emergency Department screens are sufficiently high resolution, and screen resolution was not identified as affecting diagnosis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust’s Radiology Systems Manager has confirmed that the standard screens available in ED are of a high enough resolution to view chest x ray images. The Radiology Systems Manager has drafted a document, which is awaiting their Business Group Quality Governance Board sign off, to list where all high resolution screens are within the Trust, how to access them and how to gain support to view images on them, should it be required.”

Source location

2017-0228-Response-by-Stockport-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 6 October 2017

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