PFD report

William Roath · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Oct 2025•Worcestershire

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
2

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 raised2

  1. Failure of doctors to document Nil by Mouth instructions pending SALT assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable management of nil-by-mouth restrictions
  2. Failure to ensure doctors promptly refer patients at risk of aspiration to the SALT team
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably refer patients to required specialist services
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.2

  1. Action

    Provide swallowing-problem and SALT-referral training to resident doctors, consultants and final-year medical students.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2025.
  2. Action

    Produce and disseminate a Trust-wide Patient Safety Notice on inpatient referrals to the Speech and Language Therapy team.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2025.

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 doctors to document Nil by Mouth instructions pending SALT assessment

Wider context from the report

“While Mr. Roath was being treated for a traumatic brain injury at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, a nurse documented on 20.11.24 that he was coughing and spluttering when receiving food and documented that staff were “not to continue to feed patient”. Mr. Roath was then reviewed by a doctor that same day, who documented that there should be a SALT ( Speech & Language Therapy Team ) assessment, but did not record any advice about whether Mr. Roath should remain Nil by Mouth in the meantime. A referral was not made to the SALT team for another 5 days, during which time nursing staff continued to feed Mr. Roath orally. The consultant who gave evidence about the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust’s ( the Trust’s ) own investigation into this issue told the inquest: (a) Any member of staff can make a referral to the SALT team, and in this case it should have been clearly agreed and set out who would be making the referral recommended on 20.11.24; (b) The reviewing doctor should also have documented that Mr. Roath was to be made Nil by Mouth until a further SALT assessment had been carried out; (c) Continued oral feeding between 20-25.11.24 contributed to the development/worsening of Mr. Roath’s aspiration pneumonia which was diagnosed on 21.11.24; (d) The failure promptly to assess and treat the worsening in Mr. Roath’s swallowing ability which was identified on 20.11.24 amounted to a failure to provide a basic level of care. Having heard evidence from a Senior Sister on Ward 409, where Mr. Roath was treated throughout his admission, I was satisfied that sufficient measures had been taken to try to ensure that nursing and healthcare staff did not repeat the omissions which had been identified at the inquest. When the same question was asked of the consultant in respect of doctors at the Trust, the inquest was told: “a Trust-wide communication will go out to all members of staff that SALT referrals in cases of aspiration can be made by any healthcare professional, and should be made by the professional who recognizes a risk of aspiration.” I am therefore concerned that, so far as doctors at the Trust are concerned, nearly 12 months after the relevant events, no action has yet been taken to try to ensure that the errors made by the doctor who reviewed Mr. Roath on 20.11.24 are not repeated. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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 ensure doctors promptly refer patients at risk of aspiration to the SALT team

Wider context from the report

“While Mr. Roath was being treated for a traumatic brain injury at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, a nurse documented on 20.11.24 that he was coughing and spluttering when receiving food and documented that staff were “not to continue to feed patient”. Mr. Roath was then reviewed by a doctor that same day, who documented that there should be a SALT ( Speech & Language Therapy Team ) assessment, but did not record any advice about whether Mr. Roath should remain Nil by Mouth in the meantime. A referral was not made to the SALT team for another 5 days, during which time nursing staff continued to feed Mr. Roath orally. The consultant who gave evidence about the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust’s ( the Trust’s ) own investigation into this issue told the inquest: (a) Any member of staff can make a referral to the SALT team, and in this case it should have been clearly agreed and set out who would be making the referral recommended on 20.11.24; (b) The reviewing doctor should also have documented that Mr. Roath was to be made Nil by Mouth until a further SALT assessment had been carried out; (c) Continued oral feeding between 20-25.11.24 contributed to the development/worsening of Mr. Roath’s aspiration pneumonia which was diagnosed on 21.11.24; (d) The failure promptly to assess and treat the worsening in Mr. Roath’s swallowing ability which was identified on 20.11.24 amounted to a failure to provide a basic level of care. Having heard evidence from a Senior Sister on Ward 409, where Mr. Roath was treated throughout his admission, I was satisfied that sufficient measures had been taken to try to ensure that nursing and healthcare staff did not repeat the omissions which had been identified at the inquest. When the same question was asked of the consultant in respect of doctors at the Trust, the inquest was told: “a Trust-wide communication will go out to all members of staff that SALT referrals in cases of aspiration can be made by any healthcare professional, and should be made by the professional who recognizes a risk of aspiration.” I am therefore concerned that, so far as doctors at the Trust are concerned, nearly 12 months after the relevant events, no action has yet been taken to try to ensure that the errors made by the doctor who reviewed Mr. Roath on 20.11.24 are not repeated. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably refer patients to required specialist services.

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

Provide swallowing-problem and SALT-referral training to resident doctors, consultants and final-year medical students.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further, we wish to assure the court that in the intervening period since Mr Roath’s admission, both senior and resident doctors have in fact received training on roles and responsibilities in relation to patients with swallowing problems including the mechanism by which to refer patients to SALT.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 20 October 2025

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

Produce and disseminate a Trust-wide Patient Safety Notice on inpatient referrals to the Speech and Language Therapy team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Production and distribution of a Patient Safety Notice”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 20 October 2025

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

    Improve the safer-swallow audit through a quality dashboard, quarterly meetings and local bed-sign usage audits.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2025.
  2. 2

    Refresh Nutrition and Hydration Improvement and Governance Group leadership, membership and terms of reference, with reporting to the clinical quality meeting.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Existing policies assign all patient-facing staff responsibilities for dysphagia and aspiration management, with monitoring processes for swallowing-related safety incidents.

    Stated by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Improve the safer-swallow audit through a quality dashboard, quarterly meetings and local bed-sign usage audits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████, Consultant Speech and Language Therapist (Dysphagia and Altered Airways), leads the audit as a part of the ‘Trust Safer Swallow QIP’ and confirms the audit has been improved in 2025 to provide more robust quality assurance. This has included development of a quality dashboard, quarterly ‘safer swallow’ meetings and local audit on local usage of bed signs. The most recent audit cycle reviewed the period Jan to Aug 2025.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 20 October 2025

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

Refresh Nutrition and Hydration Improvement and Governance Group leadership, membership and terms of reference, with reporting to the clinical quality meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Safe swallowing falls within the remit of the Trust’s Nutrition and Hydration Improvement and Governance Group. Following a review of all Trust Patient Safety Priorities (PSP) in November 2025, the Chief Medical Officer & Chief Nursing Officer have agreed that Nutrition & Hydration will remain as a Trust PSP in 2026. Leadership, membership and Terms of Reference for the Nutrition and Hydration Improvement and Governance Group have been refreshed, and ████████ now leads the Group. The Nutrition and Hydration Group reports to the Chief Medical Officer & Chief Nursing Officer at the Group Clinical Quality Meeting.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 20 October 2025

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 policies assign all patient-facing staff responsibilities for dysphagia and aspiration management, with monitoring processes for swallowing-related safety incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“University Hospitals Birmingham wishes to assure the court that its policies explicitly identify the role of all patient facing staff, including doctors, in managing patients with swallowing problems and who are at risk of aspiration. The Trust also has monitoring processes in place to ensure that swallowing-related patient safety incidents are identified.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 20 October 2025

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