PFD report

Margaret Anne Ferry · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Oct 2015•Sunderland

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised6

  1. Lack of an inter-trust policy clarifying responsibility and communication channels for referred patients
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination of referrals between healthcare teams
  2. Poor direct and indirect communication between medical professionals at different trusts
  3. Lack of a policy clarifying responsibilities and communication channels between trusts when patients are referred
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination of referrals between healthcare teams
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

    Develop and establish a standing operational procedure governing inter-organisational plastic surgery referrals, including documentation, response timescales and care responsibilities.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 October 2015.

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

  1. Position

    Patients on Sunderland Royal wards remain under the admitting consultant’s care, not the plastics team’s responsibility.

    Stated by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation TrustRedirects 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 an inter-trust policy clarifying responsibility and communication channels for referred patients

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence was given at the Inquest that there was no policy in place between City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust and County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust clarifying the areas of responsibility and channels of communication between the two when patients are referred. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable coordination of referrals between healthcare teams.

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

Poor direct and indirect communication between medical professionals at different trusts

Wider context from the report

“2. Evidence was given that there were poor levels of communication both direct and indirect between medical professionals at each trust and poor understanding of each other’s differing practices and procedures. ”

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 policy clarifying responsibilities and communication channels between trusts when patients are referred

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence was given at the Inquest that there was no policy in place between City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust and County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust clarifying the areas of responsibility and channels of communication between the two when patients are referred. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable coordination of referrals between healthcare teams.

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

Poor understanding between medical professionals of differing practices and procedures

Wider context from the report

“2. Evidence was given that there were poor levels of communication both direct and indirect between medical professionals at each trust and poor understanding of each other’s differing practices and procedures. ”

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

Poor understanding of differing practices and procedures between trusts

Wider context from the report

“2. Evidence was given that there were poor levels of communication both direct and indirect between medical professionals at each trust and poor understanding of each other’s differing practices and procedures. ”

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

Poor direct and indirect communication between medical professionals across trusts

Wider context from the report

“2. Evidence was given that there were poor levels of communication both direct and indirect between medical professionals at each trust and poor understanding of each other’s differing practices and procedures. ”

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

Develop and establish a standing operational procedure governing inter-organisational plastic surgery referrals, including documentation, response timescales and care responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have recognised that there were significant gaps in the provision of services to Margaret therefore, Anne Ferry, City Hospitals Sunderland, and the Trust have worked closely with our colleagues at City Hospital Sunderland to address the issues raised. In collaboration we have developed a new standing operational procedure to provide a comprehensive approach to inter organisational referrals for plastic surgery opinions. The standard procedure provides a process to ensure that the referral is clearly documented; that a suitable response is provided within clearly defined timescales, and that it is clear to all parties that patients on wards at Sunderland Royal remain under the care of the admitting consultant at all times, and not the plastics team. I have included this for your information.”

Source location

2015-0450-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 23 October 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

Patients on Sunderland Royal wards remain under the admitting consultant’s care, not the plastics team’s responsibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have recognised that there were significant gaps in the provision of services to Margaret therefore, Anne Ferry, City Hospitals Sunderland, and the Trust have worked closely with our colleagues at City Hospital Sunderland to address the issues raised. In collaboration we have developed a new standing operational procedure to provide a comprehensive approach to inter organisational referrals for plastic surgery opinions. The standard procedure provides a process to ensure that the referral is clearly documented; that a suitable response is provided within clearly defined timescales, and that it is clear to all parties that patients on wards at Sunderland Royal remain under the care of the admitting consultant at all times, and not the plastics team. I have included this for your information.”

Source location

2015-0450-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 23 October 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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026