PFD report

Gillian PEACOCK · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 May 2024•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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 of medical records to make important information immediately visible and accessible to relevant clinicians
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
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.1

  1. Action

    Convene a multidisciplinary cross-specialty group led by the Chief Pharmacist to review Major (level 2) drug interactions for potential prescriber alerts.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 June 2024.

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 medical records to make important information immediately visible and accessible to relevant clinicians

Wider context from the report

“The evidence I have heard is that the treating clinicians had not seen the entry in her medical records. This was in part due to the way the entries are displayed in the records and the 'huge' number of entries that are recorded. I heard that now that any pharmacist entries of significance must be verbally passed to a junior doctor involved in the patient's care and in turn passed on at ward meetings to the broader group of staff caring for that patient. I have a concern that the current system does not address the issue of important medical information being recorded in a patient's notes not being accessible in such a way that clinicians can see and if necessary act on it. The use of verbal handovers does not in my view fully address my concern that crucial medical information should be recorded in a patient's medical records in such a way that relevant information is visible to those involved in care. In addition, that it can be accessed immediately without reliance on the verbal passing of information from one member of the treating team to another. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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

Convene a multidisciplinary cross-specialty group led by the Chief Pharmacist to review Major (level 2) drug interactions for potential prescriber alerts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having taken into consideration your concerns the Trust is convening a multi-disciplinary, cross speciality group led by the Chief Pharmacist to review all Major (level 2) drug to drug interactions to review whether any are appropriate to activate a prescriber alert.”

Source location

Response from CDDFT
Page 5 · response
Published 14 June 2024

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.1

  1. 1

    Activating level 2 and lower drug-interaction alerts is limited by alert-fatigue risks, so they remain disabled pending review.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustUnable 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

Activating level 2 and lower drug-interaction alerts is limited by alert-fatigue risks, so they remain disabled pending review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Alerts in the EPR are referred to as clinical decision support and are a tool that helps clinicians in decision making by generating clinical alerts to supplement their previous knowledge and experience. However a large number of alerts can result in alert fatigue. ████████ (2020) define this as:”

Source location

Response from CDDFT
Page 5 · response
Published 14 June 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026