PFD report

Malcolm John Garrett · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Aug 2022•Manchester South

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised3

  1. Lack of specific guidance for expediting discharge and considering alternative treatment methods for high-risk patients
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  2. Lack of specific guidance for managing immunosuppressed patients at high risk of Covid-19 in acute hospitals
  3. Insufficient monitoring of kidney function to prevent opiate toxicity
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.4

  1. Position

    The Trust's existing vulnerable-patient risk-management process, shared learning and discharge focus were considered sufficient responsive arrangements.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 specific guidance for expediting discharge and considering alternative treatment methods for high-risk patients

Wider context from the report

“2. The evidence before the inquest was that Mr Garratt needed to be discharged as quickly as possible to reduce the risk of acquiring Covid-19. However there was no specific guidance about expediting patients such as him and looking at alternative methods of treatment; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 specific guidance for managing immunosuppressed patients at high risk of Covid-19 in acute hospitals

Wider context from the report

“1. The Inquest heard that it was recognised that Mr Garrett was at high risk of acquiring Covid-19 in a hospital setting as he was immunosuppressed following his transplant. Despite the risk being recognised he still acquired Covid-19. The Inquest heard that all such patients are at high risk in an acute hospital setting but there is no specific guidance for their management; ”

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

Insufficient monitoring of kidney function to prevent opiate toxicity

Wider context from the report

“3. His discharge was delayed in part due to opiate toxicity. That arose as a consequence of his kidneys not functioning correctly. The inquest heard evidence that to avoid opiate toxicity is such situations there needs to be a greater use of and understanding of the importance of monitoring kidney function. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 Trust's existing vulnerable-patient risk-management process, shared learning and discharge focus were considered sufficient responsive arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England also engaged with the Trust and advised that the Trust has a process in place to manage and reduce the risks of patients in vulnerable groups. They further advised that the Trust has shared the learning from this incident and that it has continued to focus on patient discharge.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 2024

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

CQC considered Trust assurances and ongoing monitoring sufficient, so it identified no need for further investigation of this specific case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The CQC advised that the matters of concern in this case, namely, hospital acquired COVID-19 and deaths attributed to a failure in monitoring kidney function are subject to regular reporting and/or evaluation as part of CQC’s monitoring and engagement activity. A management review meeting held in August 2022 concluded that neither concern was reflected in the monitoring data CQC held in relation to this Trust, such as being an outlier for the management of kidney injury. The Trust was asked at the time to provide any records or investigation reports relating to the death which the CQC would consider as part of its ongoing monitoring and engagement to ensure patients receive safe care and treatment.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 2024

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

Existing NHS, NICE and UKHSA guidance was considered sufficient to address COVID-19 infection prevention and expedited discharge concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You may wish to note that during the COVID-19 pandemic, extensive clinical guidance was issued by the NHS (eg. Coronavirus (england.nhs.uk) as well as by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), see Overview | COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing COVID-19 | Guidance | NICE. More broadly, UKHSA also issued guidance in relation to patient discharge and infection prevention and control in health and care settings.¹”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 2024

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

Existing BNF guidance on prescribing in renal impairment was considered sufficient to address opioid toxicity and kidney-function monitoring concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the issue relating to opiate toxicity and the need to understand the importance of monitoring kidney function. There is general guidance in the British National Formulary (BNF) in terms of ‘Prescribing in renal impairment’ and every opiate listed in the BNF will have an entry in relation to renal impairment eg codeine and morphine that state “Avoid use or reduce dose; opioid effects increased and prolonged or increased cerebral sensitivity occurs”.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 31 May 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