PFD report

Nathan Douthwaite · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Feb 2014•County Durham and Darlington

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
0

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. Failure to undertake rectal biopsy for diagnosis of Hirschsprung’s disease
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably arrange and complete clinically required biopsies
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    The patient did not meet NICE criteria for rectal biopsy, so the absence of a biopsy did not indicate a departure from applicable guidance.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareDisputes 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

Failure to undertake rectal biopsy for diagnosis of Hirschsprung’s disease

Wider context from the report

“It is likely that if Nathan had undergone a rectal biopsy, Hirschsprung’s disease would have been diagnosed with the opportunity then being available for the appropriate treatment and thus I consider (1) That NICE undertake a review of its guidelines in this regard (2) That Count Durham and Darlington NHS Trust does review its own practices and procedures in avoidance of a NICE review and (3) The Department of Health be aware of the circumstances of this case so that it can consider whether guidance should be issued in this regard pending the NICE review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably arrange and complete clinically required biopsies.

Open source report

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 patient did not meet NICE criteria for rectal biopsy, so the absence of a biopsy did not indicate a departure from applicable guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“method of diagnosis for Hirschsprung’s disease. No rectal biopsy was ever performed on Mr Douthwaite as he did not meet the criteria for Hirschsprung’s. Even under NICE’s guidelines on constipation, published in May 2010, Mr Douthwaite’s condition did not meet the criteria for rectal biopsy.”

Source location

2014-0084-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2014

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

  1. 1

    Responsibility for considering updates to constipation guidance lies with NICE, not the Department of Health or NHS England.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    The case falls outside the scope of NHS England’s patient safety alerting system, and alerts are unsuitable where guidelines are appropriate.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  3. 3

    The Department of Health and NHS England lack the power and expertise to issue the proposed interim clinical guidance.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Responsibility for considering updates to constipation guidance lies with NICE, not the Department of Health or NHS England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You ask the Department of Health to consider issuing interim guidance relating to this case pending the NICE review. NICE however has the statutory function of producing clinical guidelines. I consider that the expertise and responsibility lies with NICE in considering the need to update its existing guidance on constipation. Neither the Department of Health nor NHS England has the power or expertise to issue interim clinical guidelines as you propose.”

Source location

2014-0084-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 3 · response
Published 28 February 2014

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 case falls outside the scope of NHS England’s patient safety alerting system, and alerts are unsuitable where guidelines are appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England has also considered whether a patient safety alert would be appropriate. However the circumstances of this case do not fall within the scope of an alert. The new patient safety alerting system requires that specific issues are identified for the purposes of creating an alert and it is important not to use alerts where guidelines are appropriate.”

Source location

2014-0084-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 3 · response
Published 28 February 2014

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 Department of Health and NHS England lack the power and expertise to issue the proposed interim clinical guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You ask the Department of Health to consider issuing interim guidance relating to this case pending the NICE review. NICE however has the statutory function of producing clinical guidelines. I consider that the expertise and responsibility lies with NICE in considering the need to update its existing guidance on constipation. Neither the Department of Health nor NHS England has the power or expertise to issue interim clinical guidelines as you propose.”

Source location

2014-0084-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 3 · response
Published 28 February 2014

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026