PFD report

Mr Robert Anthony Perkins · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Apr 2014•Avon

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
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 raised3

  1. Failure to raise concerns about inadequate neck immobilisation
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe cervical-collar provision and management
  2. Failure to properly immobilise the neck of patients with cervical spine fractures
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe cervical-collar provision and management
  3. Unavailability of suitable cervical collars
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe cervical-collar provision and management
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

    Re-publicise the hard-collar safety alert across the Medical Directorate and Trustwide clinical directorates.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 April 2014.
  2. Action

    Include the hard-collar safety alert in future medical induction for new junior medical staff.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 April 2014.
  3. Action

    Establish a central Emergency Zone storage location for rigid cervical collars.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 April 2014.

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

  1. Position

    Further collar application was not pursued because the patient could not tolerate collars and persistence or sedation risked causing greater harm and distress.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 raise concerns about inadequate neck immobilisation

Wider context from the report

“(1) Notwithstanding the instructions of the neurosurgeons no effort was made to obtain and fit a cervical collar throughout the time he was on the ward. It was fortuitous that the patient did not suffer neurological injury. However, he was at risk of serious injury and death as a consequence of the failure to immobilise the neck. (3) Other than the Specialist Registrar no concerns were raised by medical staff that the patient's neck was not properly immobilised both on the ward and on discharge. (4) The hospital is a regional centre for neurosciences and neurosurgery yet the prescribed cervical collar was not available and the Registrar had difficulty locating a suitable collar. (5) The failure to properly immobilise the neck of patients with fractures of the cervical spine, whether on the instructions of neurosurgeons or otherwise, could place those patients at risk of significant and disabling injury and death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe cervical-collar provision and management.

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 properly immobilise the neck of patients with cervical spine fractures

Wider context from the report

“(1) Notwithstanding the instructions of the neurosurgeons no effort was made to obtain and fit a cervical collar throughout the time he was on the ward. It was fortuitous that the patient did not suffer neurological injury. However, he was at risk of serious injury and death as a consequence of the failure to immobilise the neck. (3) Other than the Specialist Registrar no concerns were raised by medical staff that the patient's neck was not properly immobilised both on the ward and on discharge. (4) The hospital is a regional centre for neurosciences and neurosurgery yet the prescribed cervical collar was not available and the Registrar had difficulty locating a suitable collar. (5) The failure to properly immobilise the neck of patients with fractures of the cervical spine, whether on the instructions of neurosurgeons or otherwise, could place those patients at risk of significant and disabling injury and death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe cervical-collar provision and management.

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

Unavailability of suitable cervical collars

Wider context from the report

“(1) Notwithstanding the instructions of the neurosurgeons no effort was made to obtain and fit a cervical collar throughout the time he was on the ward. It was fortuitous that the patient did not suffer neurological injury. However, he was at risk of serious injury and death as a consequence of the failure to immobilise the neck. (3) Other than the Specialist Registrar no concerns were raised by medical staff that the patient's neck was not properly immobilised both on the ward and on discharge. (4) The hospital is a regional centre for neurosciences and neurosurgery yet the prescribed cervical collar was not available and the Registrar had difficulty locating a suitable collar. (5) The failure to properly immobilise the neck of patients with fractures of the cervical spine, whether on the instructions of neurosurgeons or otherwise, could place those patients at risk of significant and disabling injury and death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe cervical-collar provision and management.

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

Re-publicise the hard-collar safety alert across the Medical Directorate and Trustwide clinical directorates.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the inquest the Clinical Director (CD) of the Medicine Directorate discussed this case with his neurosurgical colleagues, in particular awareness and understanding regarding the use of collars. I enclose a hard collar safety alert dated October 2011. The CD will re-publicise this issue by sending this alert out again to the Medical Directorate, and to other CDs to ensure that there is Trustwide distribution in the few days also and include it in future medical induction of new junior medical staff (the next one will be in August 2014).”

Source location

2014-0195-Response-by-North-Bristol-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 28 April 2014

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

Include the hard-collar safety alert in future medical induction for new junior medical staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the inquest the Clinical Director (CD) of the Medicine Directorate discussed this case with his neurosurgical colleagues, in particular awareness and understanding regarding the use of collars. I enclose a hard collar safety alert dated October 2011. The CD will re-publicise this issue by sending this alert out again to the Medical Directorate, and to other CDs to ensure that there is Trustwide distribution in the few days also and include it in future medical induction of new junior medical staff (the next one will be in August 2014).”

Source location

2014-0195-Response-by-North-Bristol-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 28 April 2014

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

Establish a central Emergency Zone storage location for rigid cervical collars.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The accessibility of rigid collars for the purposes of cervical immobilisation is something that is also being addressed now since the move into the new Brunel building. A place for central storage of these devices is being looked for within the Emergency Zone. By creating a single area for the location of these devices it should make it easier to know where to find a collar when the device is needed. It is anticipated that this action should be completed by the end of June 2014.”

Source location

2014-0195-Response-by-North-Bristol-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 28 April 2014

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

Report the Regulation 28 findings to the Medical Directorate’s clinical governance agenda.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The regulation 28 report will also be reported on in part B of the Medical Directorate’s clinical governance agenda on 26 June 2014. From here it will be decided on whether any further action needs to be taken. Following this, it is likely that a further notification will be made to the directorate’s medical teams to ensure that they are all familiar with the need to review plans for cervical immobilisation when a patient is admitted with a cervical neck injury and the location of the rigid collar devices.”

Source location

2014-0195-Response-by-North-Bristol-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 28 April 2014

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

Clarify handover communication when a rigid collar is not applied, including reasons, interim neck-care requirements and reattempt timing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is clear that communication of these issues is vital to prevent a recurrence of a similar case. It is agreed that communication should include, where there is a failure to apply a rigid collar in the ED, the reasons why the collar was not applied and the nursing aspects for the neck in the interim and when a reattempt at applying the collar should occur.”

Source location

2014-0195-Response-by-North-Bristol-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 April 2014

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

Further collar application was not pursued because the patient could not tolerate collars and persistence or sedation risked causing greater harm and distress.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From investigations it appears that whilst in the Emergency Department (ED) Mr Perkins was too agitated to wear a rigid collar and persistence in trying to put a collar on or even just wearing a collar would likely to have caused more harm and distress to him. Also the ED consultant felt it inappropriate to sedate Mr Perkins for the purposes of applying the collar, again due to the risks of harm from sedation.”

Source location

2014-0195-Response-by-North-Bristol-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 April 2014

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

    Maintain a clear 24-hour AAU consultant responsibility model for medical admissions.

    Stated by Bristol NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 April 2014.

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

Maintain a clear 24-hour AAU consultant responsibility model for medical admissions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since the move to the new hospital at Southmead a change has occurred in process regarding overall responsibility for patients. Now Acute Admissions Unit (AAU) consultants are in charge of the medical intake 24/7, (previously the on call consultant was in charge in lieu of an acute physician) so there is a clear line of responsibility – there is an AAU consultant (i.e. acute physician) on site between 8 am and 10 pm and on call overnight as”

Source location

2014-0195-Response-by-North-Bristol-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 April 2014

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