PFD report

Rachel Alicia Elizabeth RYAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Nov 2024•Birmingham and Solihull

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 raised2

  1. Lack of a protocol identifying the correct specialism for the biopsy procedure
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably arrange and complete clinically required biopsies
  2. Failure to convene a multidisciplinary meeting to coordinate the biopsy pathway
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concernsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe operation of multidisciplinary clinical meetings
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.3

  1. Action

    Clarify the pathway and contact process for requesting deep tissue biopsies from Interventional Radiology.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 November 2024.
  2. Action

    Write supplementary multidisciplinary guidance covering treatment goals, Infection Service involvement, Interventional Radiology biopsy requests, and the distinction between sharp debridement and deep tissue biopsy.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 November 2024.
  3. Action

    Require bedside Infection Service reviews for complex pressure ulcers and multidisciplinary discussion with ward and Tissue Viability teams, escalating appropriate osteomyelitis cases to the complex bone MDT.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 November 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

Lack of a protocol identifying the correct specialism for the biopsy procedure

Wider context from the report

“1. On 23rd April Miss Ryan’s treating consultant geriatrician received advice from the infectious diseases team that a deep tissue biopsy was strongly recommended to best guide the antibiotic therapy for her infection. 2. Despite him liaising with/going back and forth between the Tissue Viability Nurse service, the Trauma and Orthopaedic team and the Plastic Surgery team (based at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital) between 23rd April and 1st May, none of these teams could, for different reasons, facilitate this procedure. As a result, it was not until 2nd May that assistance was sought from the interventional radiology team who agreed to help. 3. The procedure was initially due to take place on 7th May but had to be put off due to Miss Ryan being on warfarin and there were then further delays due to non-availability of the relevant specialist as well as the need to stop her existing antibiotics for 24 to 48 hours before the procedure. It was finally carried out on 21st May. 4. On 22nd May a new anti-biotic regime was commenced with it being noted that one of the bacterial organisms identified from the biopsy, namely Morganella morganii, was resistant to co-amoxicalve, the antibiotic which Miss Ryan had most recently been receiving from 15th April until 19th May. 5. Although I heard evidence that the delay in starting the new antibiotic regime was unlikely to have altered the sad outcome in this case in part due to Miss Ryan’s existing frailty and poor prognosis, I am concerned that in the absence of any existing protocol regarding the correct specialism for the biopsy procedure, no Multi-disciplinary meeting bringing together specialists from the different disciplines was offered or held in this case to agree the best way forward. This led to a delay and a lack of collaboration between teams which could, if repeated, result in an avoidable death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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 convene a multidisciplinary meeting to coordinate the biopsy pathway

Wider context from the report

“1. On 23rd April Miss Ryan’s treating consultant geriatrician received advice from the infectious diseases team that a deep tissue biopsy was strongly recommended to best guide the antibiotic therapy for her infection. 2. Despite him liaising with/going back and forth between the Tissue Viability Nurse service, the Trauma and Orthopaedic team and the Plastic Surgery team (based at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital) between 23rd April and 1st May, none of these teams could, for different reasons, facilitate this procedure. As a result, it was not until 2nd May that assistance was sought from the interventional radiology team who agreed to help. 3. The procedure was initially due to take place on 7th May but had to be put off due to Miss Ryan being on warfarin and there were then further delays due to non-availability of the relevant specialist as well as the need to stop her existing antibiotics for 24 to 48 hours before the procedure. It was finally carried out on 21st May. 4. On 22nd May a new anti-biotic regime was commenced with it being noted that one of the bacterial organisms identified from the biopsy, namely Morganella morganii, was resistant to co-amoxicalve, the antibiotic which Miss Ryan had most recently been receiving from 15th April until 19th May. 5. Although I heard evidence that the delay in starting the new antibiotic regime was unlikely to have altered the sad outcome in this case in part due to Miss Ryan’s existing frailty and poor prognosis, I am concerned that in the absence of any existing protocol regarding the correct specialism for the biopsy procedure, no Multi-disciplinary meeting bringing together specialists from the different disciplines was offered or held in this case to agree the best way forward. This led to a delay and a lack of collaboration between teams which could, if repeated, result in an avoidable death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concerns; Unsafe operation of multidisciplinary clinical meetings.

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

Clarify the pathway and contact process for requesting deep tissue biopsies from Interventional Radiology.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The pathway and means of contacting Interventional Radiology for deep tissue biopsies has been clarified by the department.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 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

Write supplementary multidisciplinary guidance covering treatment goals, Infection Service involvement, Interventional Radiology biopsy requests, and the distinction between sharp debridement and deep tissue biopsy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Appendiceal guidance to supplement the existing Trust guidelines will be written by the Infection Service, Healthcare of Older Adults, Tissue Viability and Interventional Radiology. A draft should be complete by February 2025. This will include the following points:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 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

Require bedside Infection Service reviews for complex pressure ulcers and multidisciplinary discussion with ward and Tissue Viability teams, escalating appropriate osteomyelitis cases to the complex bone MDT.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Infection Service will reiterate via their Morbidity and Mortality meeting that in cases of complex pressure ulcers, a bedside review of the patient should take place to obtain a holistic view of the most appropriate goal of treatment and form part of the multidisciplinary meeting with the ward team and Tissue Viability. Those cases involving osteomyelitis where the appropriate goal is cure rather than suppression will be taken by the Infection Service to the complex bone MDT of which they are a core member.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 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-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Launch the supplementary guidance through a Lesson of the Month safety notice.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 November 2024.
  2. 2

    Refresh consistent senior medical leadership on ward 30 to support multidisciplinary working and clearer treatment goals.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 November 2024.
  3. 3

    Share actions arising from the case and wider review across the Trust.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 November 2024.

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

Launch the supplementary guidance through a Lesson of the Month safety notice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This supplementary guidance will be launched via a Lesson of the Month safety notice. I would like to assure you that the concerns raised within the Regulation 28 Report have been taken extremely seriously, which I hope is demonstrated in the steps that have been taken following Miss Ryan’s death.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 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

Refresh consistent senior medical leadership on ward 30 to support multidisciplinary working and clearer treatment goals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• There has been a refreshing of consistent medical leadership on ward 30, which had been dependent on locum senior medical staffing. Ward staff, including the Ward Manager present at the Round Table on 18 December 2024, reported that multidisciplinary working had improved considerably since this measure in November 2024, with improvement in goal-setting for treatment and care plans.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 19 November 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

Share actions arising from the case and wider review across the Trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have carefully considered the concerns raised within your report to prevent future deaths and our response is set out below. Whilst the concerns raised relate to care at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, the actions arising from this and the wider case review will be shared across UHB (referred to as ‘the Trust’).”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 19 November 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