PFD report

William DOLEMAN and 3 others · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Dec 2021•Nottinghamshire

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
11

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 raised6

  1. Lack of accountability between professionals for robust procedure vetting
  2. Failure to record the information considered during procedure vetting
  3. Lack of accountability between professionals for consent
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate informed-consent processes for medical treatmentPart of recurring concern: Unclear accountability for health and safety controls
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.5

  1. Action

    Implement the redesigned Medway-based ERCP referral pathway with expanded clinical-risk and consent information fields.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2021.
  2. Action

    Amend patient information and consent forms to document operator experience or supervision arrangements and enhanced individual risk.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2021.
  3. Action

    Record ERCP referral-vetting outcomes and considered information as visible Medway clinical notes.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Precise individualised risk cannot currently be calculated, limiting the ability to personalise ERCP consent precisely.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Lack of accountability between professionals for robust procedure vetting

Wider context from the report

“4. A lack of accountability between professionals for ensuring robust vetting and consent. ”

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 record the information considered during procedure vetting

Wider context from the report

“2. A lack of robust system for the recording of vetting of the procedure, capturing what information has been considered as part of this process. ”

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

Lack of accountability between professionals for consent

Wider context from the report

“4. A lack of accountability between professionals for ensuring robust vetting and consent. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate informed-consent processes for medical treatment; Unclear accountability for health and safety controls.

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 personalise consent

Wider context from the report

“3. Consent is not personalised, contrary to recommendations made by the ESGE in December 2019. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate informed-consent processes for medical treatment.

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 identify all patient factors relevant to the clinical indication for and safety of ERCP before the procedure

Wider context from the report

“1. A lack of robust patient pathway to ensure that all patient factors relevant to the clinical indication for, and safety of, ERCP are identified in advance of the procedure and discussed with the patient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably identify and communicate individual patient risk factors.

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 discuss relevant ERCP patient factors with the patient

Wider context from the report

“1. A lack of robust patient pathway to ensure that all patient factors relevant to the clinical indication for, and safety of, ERCP are identified in advance of the procedure and discussed with the patient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to discuss patient care options and decisions.

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

Implement the redesigned Medway-based ERCP referral pathway with expanded clinical-risk and consent information fields.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The following actions have been taken to address this concern:”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Amend patient information and consent forms to document operator experience or supervision arrangements and enhanced individual risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Patient information and consent forms will be amended to include a statement that “I understand that you cannot give me a guarantee that particular person will perform the procedure. The person performing the procedure will have appropriate experience or expert supervision”.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Record ERCP referral-vetting outcomes and considered information as visible Medway clinical notes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Medway referrals will be vetted daily by consultants who undertake ERCPs in dedicated job planned time.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Provide inpatient information booklets and obtain consent through ERCP endoscopist ward reviews before procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is not currently possible for individual personalised risk to be calculated precisely although there are aspirations for this at some point in the future. It is possible to provide estimates of the relative risk to an individual patient in relation to the population risks and to ensure that this is documented in the patient record. A number of actions to support this have already commenced:”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Operate two permanent consultant-staffed clinics to discuss ERCP indications, risks and alternatives with referred outpatients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Two new 2-hour clinics have been set up, that will run 52 weeks a year, staffed by consultants who undertake ERCPs. These sessions have already commenced and permanent funding is currently being agreed. This clinic time will be used to meet, either virtually or in person, with all out-patients referred for ERCP to discuss the indications, risks and alternatives.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Precise individualised risk cannot currently be calculated, limiting the ability to personalise ERCP consent precisely.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Consent is not personalised, contrary to recommendations made by the ESGE in December 2019.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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 described vetting and consent arrangements are expected to resolve accountability between professionals, so no additional action is identified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. A lack of accountability between professionals for ensuring robust vetting and consent.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. 1

    Expand the specialist HPB endoscopy team so five of six endoscopists can perform diagnostic EUS and proceed appropriately to ERCP.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2021.
  2. 2

    Seek consenting patients’ agreement for family members to contribute to the consent process.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2021.
  3. 3

    Convene cross-departmental stakeholders to design pathways for complex hepatopancreatobiliary cases.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2021.
  4. 4

    Participate in the EIDO home-consent pilot and develop an ERCP video explainer.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2021.
  5. 5

    Extend post-ERCP recovery observation to at least two hours, with escalation for abnormal observations or symptoms.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2021.
  6. 6

    Monitor delivery of the response actions through the Quality and Safety Oversight Group until completion.

    Stated by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2021.

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

Expand the specialist HPB endoscopy team so five of six endoscopists can perform diagnostic EUS and proceed appropriately to ERCP.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the above, we have developed our specialist HPB endoscopy team so that 5 out of 6 (previously 3 out of 6) endoscopists can perform lower-risk diagnostic EUS and only proceed if appropriate to ERCP (eg if any residual uncertainty regarding presence of bile duct stones) rather than having to delay treatment for repeat imaging or cancel procedures “on the day”. No other UK HPB endoscopy unit has this level of combined EUS/ERCP service provision.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Seek consenting patients’ agreement for family members to contribute to the consent process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Where patients give their agreement, family members will be actively sought to contribute to the consent process.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Convene cross-departmental stakeholders to design pathways for complex hepatopancreatobiliary cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A cross-departmental (HPB endoscopy, HPB surgery and interventional radiology) meeting with key stakeholders has been convened to design pathways for the best approach for complex HPB cases (eg endoscopic versus percutaneous approaches to treating complex strictures or difficult bile ducts stones; combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic bile duct exploration versus pre-operative ERCP then laparoscopic cholecystectomy) on 9 March 2022.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Participate in the EIDO home-consent pilot and develop an ERCP video explainer.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• NUH has been accepted as part of the EIDO pilot study of home consent. This will include developing a video explainer similar to one already developed at NUH relating to colonoscopy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D42s37HXloQ”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Extend post-ERCP recovery observation to at least two hours, with escalation for abnormal observations or symptoms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We have already formally extended our post-ERCP recovery time to a minimum of 2 hours, with clinical review and if any significant changes to baseline observations or ongoing symptoms this period of observation is extended, or results in hospital admission for observation, investigations or treatment.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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

Monitor delivery of the response actions through the Quality and Safety Oversight Group until completion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The actions either taken or planned in response to the learning from the inquest are summarised below. The oversight of the delivery of these actions will be through the Surgical Division’s Governance Committee. The Quality and Safety Oversight Group will be receiving reports on progress and the Quality Assurance Committee, a sub-committee of the Trust Board will be updated.”

Source location

2021-0432-Response-from-City-Hospital-Campus_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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