PFD report

Ellen Victoria Floyd Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Feb 2026•Northumberland

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
3

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. Failure to make previous gastric surgery and altered anatomy apparent in clinical notes
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  2. Failure to routinely recognise and consider previous gastric surgery during nasogastric tube insertion and subsequent complications
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes
  3. Lack of nasogastric tube insertion guidelines for patients with previous gastric surgery
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes
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.2

  1. Action

    Lead the Frontline Digitisation Programme to support provider adoption and implementation of electronic patient record systems that improve information sharing.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 June 2026.
  2. Action

    Continue working across the health and care system and with the Shared Care Records Programme to support greater integration and access to relevant patient information.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 June 2026.

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

  1. Position

    Responsibility for clinical guidance lies with NICE, so concerns about national nasogastric tube guidance should be directed to NICE.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Failure to make previous gastric surgery and altered anatomy apparent in clinical notes

Wider context from the report

“(1) Ms Taylor underwent gastric/bariatric surgery in 2009. As a result of this her oesophagus was not attached to her stomach but instead attached to her small bowel. On 25th June 2025 she was admitted to hospital having suffered a stroke and was deemed to require a nasogastric tube. The fact that she has previous surgery and her anatomy was therefore altered was not obvious from her notes. As such when complications began this was not something that was considered and investigations about potential perforation were not undertaken initially. (2) I heard evidence that the time there were no guidelines about insertion of nasogastric tubes in circumstances where someone had had previous gastric surgery. The Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust identified areas of learning as a result of the circumstances of Ms Taylor’s death. The key finding from the After Action Review was that the previous gastric surgery was not recognised at the time of the nasogastric tube insertion. Previous surgery was not a routine consideration and not included within the nasogastric tube guideline. Local guidelines have now changed and consultation with on-call surgical team for guidance about insertion of the tube in these circumstances is now included in the process. Training has taken place and a clinical safety message circulated to increase awareness. Whilst the local NHS Traut have taken and implemented these steps my concern is that there is a wider risk, and these are circumstances that are relevant to every NHS trust nationally and there is a risk future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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 routinely recognise and consider previous gastric surgery during nasogastric tube insertion and subsequent complications

Wider context from the report

“(1) Ms Taylor underwent gastric/bariatric surgery in 2009. As a result of this her oesophagus was not attached to her stomach but instead attached to her small bowel. On 25th June 2025 she was admitted to hospital having suffered a stroke and was deemed to require a nasogastric tube. The fact that she has previous surgery and her anatomy was therefore altered was not obvious from her notes. As such when complications began this was not something that was considered and investigations about potential perforation were not undertaken initially. (2) I heard evidence that the time there were no guidelines about insertion of nasogastric tubes in circumstances where someone had had previous gastric surgery. The Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust identified areas of learning as a result of the circumstances of Ms Taylor’s death. The key finding from the After Action Review was that the previous gastric surgery was not recognised at the time of the nasogastric tube insertion. Previous surgery was not a routine consideration and not included within the nasogastric tube guideline. Local guidelines have now changed and consultation with on-call surgical team for guidance about insertion of the tube in these circumstances is now included in the process. Training has taken place and a clinical safety message circulated to increase awareness. Whilst the local NHS Traut have taken and implemented these steps my concern is that there is a wider risk, and these are circumstances that are relevant to every NHS trust nationally and there is a risk future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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 nasogastric tube insertion guidelines for patients with previous gastric surgery

Wider context from the report

“(1) Ms Taylor underwent gastric/bariatric surgery in 2009. As a result of this her oesophagus was not attached to her stomach but instead attached to her small bowel. On 25th June 2025 she was admitted to hospital having suffered a stroke and was deemed to require a nasogastric tube. The fact that she has previous surgery and her anatomy was therefore altered was not obvious from her notes. As such when complications began this was not something that was considered and investigations about potential perforation were not undertaken initially. (2) I heard evidence that the time there were no guidelines about insertion of nasogastric tubes in circumstances where someone had had previous gastric surgery. The Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust identified areas of learning as a result of the circumstances of Ms Taylor’s death. The key finding from the After Action Review was that the previous gastric surgery was not recognised at the time of the nasogastric tube insertion. Previous surgery was not a routine consideration and not included within the nasogastric tube guideline. Local guidelines have now changed and consultation with on-call surgical team for guidance about insertion of the tube in these circumstances is now included in the process. Training has taken place and a clinical safety message circulated to increase awareness. Whilst the local NHS Traut have taken and implemented these steps my concern is that there is a wider risk, and these are circumstances that are relevant to every NHS trust nationally and there is a risk future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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

Delays in investigating potential perforation after nasogastric tube complications

Wider context from the report

“(1) Ms Taylor underwent gastric/bariatric surgery in 2009. As a result of this her oesophagus was not attached to her stomach but instead attached to her small bowel. On 25th June 2025 she was admitted to hospital having suffered a stroke and was deemed to require a nasogastric tube. The fact that she has previous surgery and her anatomy was therefore altered was not obvious from her notes. As such when complications began this was not something that was considered and investigations about potential perforation were not undertaken initially. (2) I heard evidence that the time there were no guidelines about insertion of nasogastric tubes in circumstances where someone had had previous gastric surgery. The Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust identified areas of learning as a result of the circumstances of Ms Taylor’s death. The key finding from the After Action Review was that the previous gastric surgery was not recognised at the time of the nasogastric tube insertion. Previous surgery was not a routine consideration and not included within the nasogastric tube guideline. Local guidelines have now changed and consultation with on-call surgical team for guidance about insertion of the tube in these circumstances is now included in the process. Training has taken place and a clinical safety message circulated to increase awareness. Whilst the local NHS Traut have taken and implemented these steps my concern is that there is a wider risk, and these are circumstances that are relevant to every NHS trust nationally and there is a risk future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably investigate suspected bowel perforation; Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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

Lead the Frontline Digitisation Programme to support provider adoption and implementation of electronic patient record systems that improve information sharing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England has developed and led for the last 5 years a Frontline Digitisation (FD) Programme, which has supported provider organisations across England to adopt Electronic Patient Record (EPR) systems which support increased consistency in digital maturity but also improve information sharing within and between organisations.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 June 2026

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

Continue working across the health and care system and with the Shared Care Records Programme to support greater integration and access to relevant patient information.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England is aware of the challenge in sharing medical records and results within organisations and recognises the variability between areas using different technologies. The FD programme continues to work across the health and care system to support greater integration and awareness of record sharing between providers. NHS England is also working with the Shared Care Records Programme which supports wider access to relevant patient information.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 15 June 2026

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

Responsibility for clinical guidance lies with NICE, so concerns about national nasogastric tube guidance should be directed to NICE.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The responsibility for clinical guidance sits with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We would advise the Coroner to contact NICE directly to address concerns regarding the guidance.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 15 June 2026

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.1

  1. 1

    Discuss all received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share their learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 June 2026.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Each healthcare organisation is responsible for sharing electronic-record information through its established local digital governance processes.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Discuss all received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share their learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Ms Floyd Taylor, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 15 June 2026

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

Each healthcare organisation is responsible for sharing electronic-record information through its established local digital governance processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Responsibility and accountability for the sharing of information held within electronic records, including across different systems, rests with each organisation through its established digital governance processes. Information sharing across digital records is governed through established Information Governance. In practice, organisations do not generally share the entire patient record as a single dataset. Information sharing is purpose-led and governed through a combination of information governance, clinical governance and clinical safety processes (information sharing agreements, role-based access, audit trails and clinical safety assurance), ensuring disclosures are necessary, proportionate and safe for the stated purpose.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 June 2026

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