PFD report

Lexie Louise Harrison · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Feb 2015•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
9

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
5

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 raised9

  1. Lack of local policy and/or guidelines for paediatric endoscopic banding of oesophageal varices
  2. Failure to standardise Consultant practice for paediatric endoscopic banding of oesophageal varices
  3. Lack of defined Consultant competency and supervision criteria for the procedure
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.4

  1. Action

    Share Leeds emergency variceal-management guidelines with referring trusts.

    Stated by Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 February 2015.
  2. Action

    Participate in the international prophylactic-banding study, recruiting patients and recording procedure outcomes in a database.

    Stated by Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 February 2015.
  3. Action

    Discuss standardisation of oesophageal-variceal banding practices through the UK Paediatric Liver Steering Group.

    Stated by Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 February 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    The concerns should be directed to the BSPGHAN President, because they concern complex liver disease and portal hypertension beyond endoscopic banding alone.

    Stated by Cardiff & Vale University LHBRedirects 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

Lack of local policy and/or guidelines for paediatric endoscopic banding of oesophageal varices

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

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

Failure to standardise Consultant practice for paediatric endoscopic banding of oesophageal varices

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

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

Lack of defined Consultant competency and supervision criteria for the procedure

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

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

Lack of standardised post-endoscopy care requirements

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

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

Lack of a defined pre-procedure assessment process for banding programme patients

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

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

Lack of defined patient suitability criteria for banding programmes

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

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

Lack of defined criteria for which varices should undergo banding

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

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

Lack of defined assessment and management steps for variceal bleeding

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of significant bleeding; Unsafe management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

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 precise definitions of oesophageal varix grades

Wider context from the report

“(1) Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has a policy in place and/or guidelines dealing with paediatric endoscopy procedures for the banding of an oesophageal varix/oesophageal varices (“the procedure”). Neither Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust nor Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has such a policy and/or guidelines. Both of the latter Trusts have undertaken the said procedure for many years. (2) There is no standardisation of practises (either locally or nationally) adopted by Consultants when undertaking the said procedure, by reason predominantly of there being no national policy and/or guidelines in relation thereto. Such a national policy and/or guidelines should address the following:- (a) Precise definitions of the grades of oesophageal varices; (b) Which grades of varices should be subject to banding and which should not; (c) Those patients who are to be deemed suitable for placing on a banding programme and those who are not; (d) Once a patient is placed on a banding programme, the assessment process to be adopted prior to the said patient undergoing each procedure; (e) Post endoscopy care, for example, the administration of sucralfate, frequency of basic observations; (f) The steps to be taken to properly assess for and manage variceal bleeding, for example, the immediate use of antibiotics; (g) The circumstances in which a Consultant is deemed to be competent to undertake the procedure alone or with supervision. ”

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

Share Leeds emergency variceal-management guidelines with referring trusts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These guidelines are very similar to those used in both London and Birmingham and we have shared the Leeds guidelines with our referring Trusts including Sheffield Children’s Hospital.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-The-Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Participate in the international prophylactic-banding study, recruiting patients and recording procedure outcomes in a database.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Currently the three UK Paediatric Liver Centres have agreed to take part in an International study which asks the Centres to recruit patients following a surveillance endoscopy to each Centre’s normal management i.e. no prophylactic banding; prophylactic banding in certain age groups; and prophylactic banding in most children. The centres will be required to keep a database of the outcomes of these procedures to get a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of prophylactic banding in children. This is not a randomised study but is deemed to be the only way to recruit large numbers of children.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-The-Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Discuss standardisation of oesophageal-variceal banding practices through the UK Paediatric Liver Steering Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Leeds team have advised me that the standardisation of practices is to be discussed at the UK Paediatric Liver Steering Group which includes representatives from the three UK Paediatric Liver Centres and a representative of the Paediatric Gastroenterology Centres with an interest in hepatology.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-The-Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Use the international study’s agreed variceal-grading scale and endoscopy photographs to standardise grading across centres.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to part (a), (b), (c) and (d) the definitions of oesophageal variceal grading is always subjective; hence there is a variety of grading scales in both adult and paediatric practice. However, there will be an agreed grading scale for the International study referred to above and this will be shared with all Centres. Photographs will be taken at endoscopy to standardise the grading. The results of this study should help clinical teams to make recommendations about who should be put forward for prophylactic banding; which grades of varices should be subject to prophylactic banding; and what the risks are of inducing bleeding by prophylactic banding.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-The-Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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 concerns should be directed to the BSPGHAN President, because they concern complex liver disease and portal hypertension beyond endoscopic banding alone.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(iii) I think (irrespective of (ii) above) that a matter of this importance would be better directed to the BSPGHAN President rather than the Chair of the EWG. He is copied in to this response and would be pleased to receive your request and then offer a formal reply on behalf of BSPGHAN. The main reason for this is that your concerns are related to the care of children with complex liver disease and the complication of portal hypertension rather than purely the procedure of the endoscopic banding of varices.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-University-Hospital-of-Wales
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Organisations such as RCPCH, JAG, NICE or the NHS are better placed to advance and compel the requested national change.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(v) Alternatively and / or in addition, you may wish to direct your concerns to organisations within the UK that have more power and influence than our relatively small and poorly resourced society. They would almost certainly come to BSPGHAN for advice / direction but may be better placed to take matters forward and compel the change that you seek. Examples would be the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, JAG, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) or the NHS itself.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-University-Hospital-of-Wales
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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 concerns cannot be pursued personally because involvement would create an obvious competing interest in the index case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(ii) I have handed over the Chair of the BSPGHAN Endoscopy Working Group (EWG) to a Consultant colleague ████████ who is employed as a Consultant Paediatric Gastroenterologist in the Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust. Clearly this makes her involvement as the new chair impossible given an obvious competing interest in the index case. Neither should I attempt to take your request forward in a personal capacity.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-University-Hospital-of-Wales
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Current guidelines are considered sufficient for post-operative care and management of bleeding varices, including after prophylactic banding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to parts (e) and (f), post-operative care is the same whether the patient undergoes prophylactic banding or banding after bleeding, and the Leeds team will follow their current guidelines as for management of bleeding varices.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-The-Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Prophylactic banding in younger children is not offered because the evidence is predominantly adult and further evidence is awaited.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In Leeds, following considerable deliberation of the evidence available, the clinical team concluded that they should only offer prophylactic banding to children over 10 years of age who are found to have large varices. They felt that the evidence base is very much adult literature and therefore they can justify applying that to children over 10 years of age but should await further evidence before applying this management to younger children. In King's College Hospital, London, they do not undertake prophylactic banding at all in children.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-The-Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Assessment of competency in interventional endoscopy is being addressed nationally within the Royal College specialty advisor committee.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The assessment of competency in interventional endoscopy is under discussion at a national level within the Paediatric Gastroenterology and Hepatology College Specialty Advisor Committee, within the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-The-Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Standardisation of consultant practices is to be discussed by the UK Paediatric Liver Steering Group rather than undertaken solely by the Trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Leeds team have advised me that the standardisation of practices is to be discussed at the UK Paediatric Liver Steering Group which includes representatives from the three UK Paediatric Liver Centres and a representative of the Paediatric Gastroenterology Centres with an interest in hepatology.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-The-Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

    Hand over the Chair of the BSPGHAN Endoscopy Working Group to a consultant colleague.

    Stated by Cardiff & Vale University LHBStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 February 2015.

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

Hand over the Chair of the BSPGHAN Endoscopy Working Group to a consultant colleague.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(ii) I have handed over the Chair of the BSPGHAN Endoscopy Working Group (EWG) to a Consultant colleague ████████ who is employed as a Consultant Paediatric Gastroenterologist in the Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust. Clearly this makes her involvement as the new chair impossible given an obvious competing interest in the index case. Neither should I attempt to take your request forward in a personal capacity.”

Source location

2015-0070-Response-by-University-Hospital-of-Wales
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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
2/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026