PFD report

Jacqueline Marie Antoinette Frehe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 May 2026•Somerset

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
9

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. Failure to clearly document and communicate a patient’s nil by mouth status reported by family on the ward
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and familiesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirementsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable management of nil-by-mouth restrictions
  2. Failure of ward staff to question a patient’s nil by mouth status when receiving a patient with dysphagia and suspected aspiration pneumonia
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable dysphagia care and managementPart of recurring concern: Unreliable management of nil-by-mouth restrictions
  3. Failure to effectively communicate patients’ nil by mouth status from the emergency department during transfer to a ward
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirementsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable management of nil-by-mouth restrictions
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.7

  1. Action

    Review and standardise bedside safety information, alerts, safety huddles, briefings, and handovers to improve visibility of nil-by-mouth status.

    Stated by NHS Somerset NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 August 2026.
  2. Action

    Develop a Trust-wide SBAR handover template with mandatory dietary-status fields identifying nil-by-mouth status as a critical safety parameter.

    Stated by NHS Somerset NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 August 2026.
  3. Action

    Strengthen documentation, escalation, clinical review, and closed-loop communication of family-raised risks such as nil-by-mouth status.

    Stated by NHS Somerset NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 August 2026.

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 clearly document and communicate a patient’s nil by mouth status reported by family on the ward

Wider context from the report

“I heard evidence from the Ward Manager. I was not satisfied that sufficient steps had been taken to ensure that: 1. patients’ nil by mouth status is effectively communicated from the emergency department on transfer of patients to a ward setting; and 2. communication of a patient’s nil by mouth status by family is clearly documented and communicated on the ward; and 3. ward staff question a patient’s nil by mouth status on receiving a patient with a presentation of dysphagia and suspected aspiration pneumonia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and families; Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirements; Unreliable management of nil-by-mouth restrictions.

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 of ward staff to question a patient’s nil by mouth status when receiving a patient with dysphagia and suspected aspiration pneumonia

Wider context from the report

“I heard evidence from the Ward Manager. I was not satisfied that sufficient steps had been taken to ensure that: 1. patients’ nil by mouth status is effectively communicated from the emergency department on transfer of patients to a ward setting; and 2. communication of a patient’s nil by mouth status by family is clearly documented and communicated on the ward; and 3. ward staff question a patient’s nil by mouth status on receiving a patient with a presentation of dysphagia and suspected aspiration pneumonia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable dysphagia care and management; Unreliable management of nil-by-mouth restrictions.

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 effectively communicate patients’ nil by mouth status from the emergency department during transfer to a ward

Wider context from the report

“I heard evidence from the Ward Manager. I was not satisfied that sufficient steps had been taken to ensure that: 1. patients’ nil by mouth status is effectively communicated from the emergency department on transfer of patients to a ward setting; and 2. communication of a patient’s nil by mouth status by family is clearly documented and communicated on the ward; and 3. ward staff question a patient’s nil by mouth status on receiving a patient with a presentation of dysphagia and suspected aspiration pneumonia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of patients' nutritional requirements; Unreliable management of nil-by-mouth restrictions.

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

Review and standardise bedside safety information, alerts, safety huddles, briefings, and handovers to improve visibility of nil-by-mouth status.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Visual Identification and Safety Communication”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 August 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

Develop a Trust-wide SBAR handover template with mandatory dietary-status fields identifying nil-by-mouth status as a critical safety parameter.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Standardisation of Emergency Department to Ward Handover”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 August 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

Strengthen documentation, escalation, clinical review, and closed-loop communication of family-raised risks such as nil-by-mouth status.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To address this, we are strengthening expectations for staff to clearly document, escalate, and act upon concerns raised by families. This will include:”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 August 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

Conduct After Action Reviews of communication and handover incidents under Patient Safety Incident Response Framework principles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has strengthened its approach to incidents involving communication/ sharing of patient information, and handover by undertaking After Action Reviews (AARs) in accordance with the principles of Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF). This approach supports the rapid identification of learning, promotes a systems-based understanding of the factors influencing practice, and enables proportionate improvement actions to be implemented at the point of care. Learning derived from AARs is also aggregated and considered within wider Quality Improvement workstreams, ensuring that themes relating to information sharing and ward-level handover arrangements inform our longer-term organisational improvement and risk reduction strategies This work is being done in conjunction with our Patient Safety Faculty.”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 August 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

Review patient-transfer standard operating procedures for appropriate staffing, equipment, and communication processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This programme also includes a review of our standard operating procedures for patient transfers to ensure that appropriate staffing, equipment, and communication processes are consistently in place.”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 August 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

Embed a transfer safety pause requiring transferring and receiving staff to confirm key risks, including nil-by-mouth status, before handover completion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, we plan to embed a ‘safety pause’ within the transfer process, requiring both transferring and receiving staff to confirm key patient risks, including NBM status, before handover is completed. This will be supported by clearer accountability, including named individuals responsible for providing and receiving handover information.”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 August 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

Deliver ward-based dysphagia and aspiration-risk education and promote IDDSI e-learning for clinical staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are continuing to strengthen education and training for clinical staff in relation to dysphagia, aspiration risk, and safe management of nutrition and hydration. This includes targeted ward-based teaching and promotion of the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) e-learning programme, delivered in collaboration with our speech and language therapy colleagues. We would aim to have 90% of staff within the service group trained within the next 6 months. Our clinical skills facilitators are promoting this training alongside delivery of their snack box training in conjunction with our hydration and nutrition team.”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 August 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.2

  1. 1

    Capture improvement actions in a structured tracked plan and monitor progress through Trust governance, incident-response, and ward-accreditation frameworks.

    Stated by NHS Somerset NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 August 2026.
  2. 2

    Share After Action Review learning through ward safety huddles and wider service-level communications, while reinforcing dysphagia recommendations and education for ward staff.

    Stated by NHS Somerset NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 August 2026.

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

Capture improvement actions in a structured tracked plan and monitor progress through Trust governance, incident-response, and ward-accreditation frameworks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Governance, Oversight and Assurance”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 25 August 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

Share After Action Review learning through ward safety huddles and wider service-level communications, while reinforcing dysphagia recommendations and education for ward staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The review further identified opportunities to strengthen the systems supporting safe care, including the need for more effective integration of bedside safety information into routine workflows, improved prompts to review specialist guidance, and greater visibility of dysphagia-related risks. Learning highlighted that reliance on documentation and posters alone may not be sufficient to ensure compliance with specialist feeding plans, particularly during periods of ward transfer, high patient turnover or increased operational pressure.”

Source location

Response from Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 August 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