PFD report

Violet Elizabeth Howard · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Sep 2022•Manchester North

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised1

  1. Gap in commissioning arrangements for dermatology services for out-of-area in-patients
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.1

  1. Action

    Drive completion of acute dermatology service actions and obtain quality and safety assurances through locality oversight of the service-level agreement.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 October 2022.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Existing block-contract arrangements should provide dermatology services for all inpatients, including those from outside Oldham.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardExisting 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

Gap in commissioning arrangements for dermatology services for out-of-area in-patients

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is a gap in the commissioning arrangements for dermatology services covering in-patients at the Royal Oldham Hospital. Those arrangements do not cover in-patients who are from outside of the Oldham area unless and until they become ‘emergency dermatological cases’ and meet the criteria for input from dermatology at Salford Royal Hospital. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Drive completion of acute dermatology service actions and obtain quality and safety assurances through locality oversight of the service-level agreement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Dermatology specialist input for an inpatient within the Oldham Care Organisation, regardless of area of residence, is a provision within the block contract for services and therefore is an expected provision by the hospital. The Oldham hospital site has never directly provided dermatology services, and the Clinical Commissioning Group, now an NHS GM locality team, has on several occasions raised this with the care organisation as a concern and this has been amplified by the findings in this case. The proposed approach was a service level agreement (SLA) with Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (SRFT). This has been actioned by the Oldham Care Organisation Divisional Managing Director Medicine and is being monitored by the Oldham ICB Locality Team.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 2022

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 block-contract arrangements should provide dermatology services for all inpatients, including those from outside Oldham.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding out-of-area cover, this should be provided via the block contract as described above. As a locality, services are commissioned from HCRG Care Group. HCRG are commissioned to deliver a community based secondary care dermatology service from the Integrated Care Centre. This service is an outpatient, diagnostic and 2 week-wait service which serves the registered population of Oldham hence the reason why the GP referral was declined and raises concerns as to why this was the chosen route given the arrangements in place.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 2022

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

The Oldham Care Organisation is responsible for providing inpatient dermatology services and addressing the provision gap through an SLA.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The service is not commissioned to supply in-reach services into the NCA, and therefore the Oldham Care Organisation are bound under the existing contract to provide the necessary service which should cover all levels of dermatology requirements for inpatients within the care organisation, not just those deemed to be dermatological emergencies.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 2022

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

The concern reflects a gap in acute dermatology provision, not a commissioning gap.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Dermatology specialist input for an inpatient within the Oldham Care Organisation, regardless of area of residence, is a provision within the block contract for services and therefore is an expected provision by the hospital. The Oldham hospital site has never directly provided dermatology services, and the Clinical Commissioning Group, now an NHS GM locality team, has on several occasions raised this with the care organisation as a concern and this has been amplified by the findings in this case. The proposed approach was a service level agreement (SLA) with Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (SRFT). This has been actioned by the Oldham Care Organisation Divisional Managing Director Medicine and is being monitored by the Oldham ICB Locality Team.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 1 · response
Published 4 October 2022

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

    Monitor key learning points and recommendations to ensure they become embedded in practice.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2022.
  2. 2

    Cascade shared learning from this and similar cases to professionals through relevant Greater Manchester and borough governance and learning forums.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2022.
  3. 3

    Present and share the case learning with the Greater Manchester System Quality Group.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 October 2022.

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

Monitor key learning points and recommendations to ensure they become embedded in practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In conclusion, key learning points and recommendations will be monitored to ensure they are embedded within practice. NHS GM is committed to improving outcomes for the population of Greater Manchester.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 2022

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

Cascade shared learning from this and similar cases to professionals through relevant Greater Manchester and borough governance and learning forums.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Shared learning from this and similar cases at Greater Manchester and borough level will be cascaded to professionals through relevant governance and learning forums.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 2022

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

Present and share the case learning with the Greater Manchester System Quality Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Learning to be presented/shared with the Greater Manchester System Quality Group. This meeting is attended by commissioners, including commissioners of specialist services, regulators, Healthwatch and NICE.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 4 October 2022

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