PFD report

Maurice Cowling and 2 others · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Mar 2015•North Lincolnshire and Grimsby

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

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.

Concerns raised1

  1. Inadequate resources for managing recognised procedural complications
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

    Keep the Trust’s arrangements for managing post-operative complications under review.

    Stated by Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 March 2015.

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

  1. Position

    Existing arrangements are considered appropriate for managing post-operative complications, so no further specific actions have been identified, subject to review.

    Stated by Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation TrustExisting 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

Inadequate resources for managing recognised procedural complications

Wider context from the report

“Despite evidence of the rarity of deaths occurring as a consequence of such procedures three cases have received the attention of the Coroner within a short period. Two procedures were carried out within the Trust, the third (Mr. Connon) by St Hugh’s Hospital under an NHS contract. In the latter case the deceased was transferred to a Trust hospital for emergency management. Evidence led in the cases raise concerns that resources within the Trust area may be inadequate to deal with recognised complications occurring either during the procedure or later ”

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

Keep the Trust’s arrangements for managing post-operative complications under review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In conclusion, from the Trust’s review it is felt that the Trust has in place appropriate arrangements to deal with post-operative complications of the nature experienced. Whilst no further specific actions have been identified, this will be kept under review.”

Source location

2015-0096-Response-by-Northern-Lincolnshire-Goole-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 13 March 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

Existing arrangements are considered appropriate for managing post-operative complications, so no further specific actions have been identified, subject to review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In conclusion, from the Trust’s review it is felt that the Trust has in place appropriate arrangements to deal with post-operative complications of the nature experienced. Whilst no further specific actions have been identified, this will be kept under review.”

Source location

2015-0096-Response-by-Northern-Lincolnshire-Goole-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 13 March 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.3

  1. 1

    Complete a patient safety review of the three cases from anaesthetic and surgical perspectives to determine whether further Trust action was needed.

    Stated by Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 March 2015.
  2. 2

    Complete the Serious Untoward Incident action plan to minimise recurrence risk and ensure staff understand the required response to similar cases.

    Stated by Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 March 2015.
  3. 3

    Share the Serious Untoward Incident report and action plan with the coroner.

    Stated by Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 March 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    The three patients’ complications were managed appropriately, including appropriate treatment of the haemorrhage, infection and post-operative deterioration.

    Stated by Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    The evidence does not establish with certainty that the acetabular screw caused the pelvic haemorrhage; an underlying vascular abnormality was also possible.

    Stated by Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Complete a patient safety review of the three cases from anaesthetic and surgical perspectives to determine whether further Trust action was needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further to your letter of 13 March with enclosed Regulation 28 report, the Trust has now completed the patient safety review of the three cases that you requested.”

Source location

2015-0096-Response-by-Northern-Lincolnshire-Goole-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 13 March 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

Complete the Serious Untoward Incident action plan to minimise recurrence risk and ensure staff understand the required response to similar cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust investigated this case as a Serious Untoward Incident (SUI) and, as you are aware, an independent external opinion was obtained from a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, ████████. He confirmed that the injury sustained to the blood vessel is a rare but well recognised complication and that the complication was also managed appropriately.”

Source location

2015-0096-Response-by-Northern-Lincolnshire-Goole-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 13 March 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

Share the Serious Untoward Incident report and action plan with the coroner.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The SUI report made a number of recommendations in relation to minimising the risk of such an incident occurring again and also ensuring staff are aware of what action needs to be taken in a similar case. I am aware that the SUI report and action plan were shared with you ahead of the Inquest which was held. I can also confirm that all actions are now complete.”

Source location

2015-0096-Response-by-Northern-Lincolnshire-Goole-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 13 March 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 three patients’ complications were managed appropriately, including appropriate treatment of the haemorrhage, infection and post-operative deterioration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust investigated this case as a Serious Untoward Incident (SUI) and, as you are aware, an independent external opinion was obtained from a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, ████████. He confirmed that the injury sustained to the blood vessel is a rare but well recognised complication and that the complication was also managed appropriately.”

Source location

2015-0096-Response-by-Northern-Lincolnshire-Goole-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 13 March 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 evidence does not establish with certainty that the acetabular screw caused the pelvic haemorrhage; an underlying vascular abnormality was also possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From an orthopaedic point of view it is relatively common for the acetabular screw to enter the pelvis during this type of surgery but the haemorrhage which occurred here is not something that the surgeons have previously encountered. The surgery was performed by a very experienced surgeon (a Consultant) and the technique used was a standard one. Precisely why on this occasion there was such a significant haemorrhage is very difficult to establish. The Pathologist has noted that he was unable to identify the blood vessel from which the bleed had originated because the arteries were heavily calcified, difficult to cut and the site was obscured by blood clot. It is therefore difficult to conclude with any degree of certainty why the haemorrhage occurred in this case.”

Source location

2015-0096-Response-by-Northern-Lincolnshire-Goole-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 13 March 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026