Joan Elizabeth Talbot · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Nov 2025•Inner South London

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an 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
10

Described in responses

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 to maintain continuity of care across admitting teams
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain a shared clinical overview of patients' changing concernsPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide continuity of patient care
  2. Failure to evaluate and refine record systems to support continuity of care

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.10

  1. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Produce and use the Problem List Etiquette Guide to standardize problem-list and associated documentation practices.

  2. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Agree EPIC documentation metrics and audit standards to establish baseline quality and track improvement.

  3. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Oversee EPIC build changes, including navigators and note templates, to facilitate documentation quality improvement.

  4. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Approve and sign off the Documentation Quality Group’s cross-Trust scope and membership.

  5. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Monitor the effectiveness of the patient-safety actions through established governance and reporting arrangements.

  6. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Establish a cross-Trust EPIC Documentation Quality Group to assess data quality, oversee documentation enhancements and lead targeted quality-improvement initiatives.

  7. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Design and oversee targeted documentation quality-improvement projects before wider rollout.

  8. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Present and discuss the Problem List Etiquette Guide at clinical and governance forums to disseminate learning from the PFD.

  9. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Review EPIC teaching and training and update materials to cover audit requirements and completed build changes.

  10. King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    Engage residents and senior clinicians to identify barriers to documentation best practice.

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 maintain continuity of care across admitting teams

Wider context from the report

“1. Mrs Talbot had been admitted on 3 occasions when a history of diarrhoea, at times bloody, was reported before her final fourth admission. On each occasion she came under a different admitting team. There were gaps in continuity of care such that the significance of her history of diarrhoea was not fully appreciated resulting in delays in this presentation being investigated. Although the Trust has subsequently introduced a new record system that has the potential to assist with continuity of care, it has not asked itself how this system can be used most effectively to ensure continuity of care in this specific scenario, whether further refinements to the existing systems and processes may be required. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain a shared clinical overview of patients' changing concerns; Failure to provide continuity of patient care.

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 evaluate and refine record systems to support continuity of care

Wider context from the report

“1. Mrs Talbot had been admitted on 3 occasions when a history of diarrhoea, at times bloody, was reported before her final fourth admission. On each occasion she came under a different admitting team. There were gaps in continuity of care such that the significance of her history of diarrhoea was not fully appreciated resulting in delays in this presentation being investigated. Although the Trust has subsequently introduced a new record system that has the potential to assist with continuity of care, it has not asked itself how this system can be used most effectively to ensure continuity of care in this specific scenario, whether further refinements to the existing systems and processes may be required. ”

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

Produce and use the Problem List Etiquette Guide to standardize problem-list and associated documentation practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“in October 2023, a number of quality improvement pieces of work have been undertaken to improve patient safety & quality, through an initial ‘stabilisation phase’ of urgent work, followed by an ‘optimisation phase’ of improving functionality across a number of domains. We are conscious that further improvements are required and we are not complacent with regard to pace and scope of this work. Improvements in medical notes documentation commenced over the last few months, in particular a ‘Problem List Etiquette Guide’ has been produced, which outlines expectations for the use of problem lists and associated documentation fields.”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 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

Agree EPIC documentation metrics and audit standards to establish baseline quality and track improvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the referenced problem list functionality was not yet deployed at the time of the incident (as the previous electronic patient record system was still in operation), the Trust acknowledges there is scope to enhance both EPIC’s documentation capabilities and the guidance provided to clinicians regarding its use. Therefore, in response to the concerns raised, the Trust has committed to establishing a cross-Trust EPIC Documentation Quality Group (‘DQG’). The DQG will be responsible for developing mechanisms to assess and monitor data quality, overseeing enhancements to documentation functionality, and leading targeted quality improvement initiatives. The drafting of the DQG’s terms of reference has specifically addressed the matters raised within the PFD, ensuring that the DQG’s work programme is both data-driven and aligned with identified risks.”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 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

Oversee EPIC build changes, including navigators and note templates, to facilitate documentation quality improvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the referenced problem list functionality was not yet deployed at the time of the incident (as the previous electronic patient record system was still in operation), the Trust acknowledges there is scope to enhance both EPIC’s documentation capabilities and the guidance provided to clinicians regarding its use. Therefore, in response to the concerns raised, the Trust has committed to establishing a cross-Trust EPIC Documentation Quality Group (‘DQG’). The DQG will be responsible for developing mechanisms to assess and monitor data quality, overseeing enhancements to documentation functionality, and leading targeted quality improvement initiatives. The drafting of the DQG’s terms of reference has specifically addressed the matters raised within the PFD, ensuring that the DQG’s work programme is both data-driven and aligned with identified risks.”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 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

Approve and sign off the Documentation Quality Group’s cross-Trust scope and membership.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Subject to final approval, it is anticipated that the DQG will be operational from early 2026 and will report through existing EPIC governance and oversight structures. The draft terms of reference can be found in Appendix 1 (attached). It is planned to sign off the scope and membership of the meeting across both Trusts in January. In the meantime, the Problem List Etiquette Guide will be tabled and discussed at the Clinical Directors Meeting and the Governance Lead Forum in early 2026 so that learning in relation to the PFD can be facilitated.”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 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

Monitor the effectiveness of the patient-safety actions through established governance and reporting arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We trust that this response provides assurance that the matters raised in the PFD have been carefully considered and that appropriate actions are being taken to reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future. The Trust will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these actions through its established governance and reporting arrangements.”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 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

Establish a cross-Trust EPIC Documentation Quality Group to assess data quality, oversee documentation enhancements and lead targeted quality-improvement initiatives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the referenced problem list functionality was not yet deployed at the time of the incident (as the previous electronic patient record system was still in operation), the Trust acknowledges there is scope to enhance both EPIC’s documentation capabilities and the guidance provided to clinicians regarding its use. Therefore, in response to the concerns raised, the Trust has committed to establishing a cross-Trust EPIC Documentation Quality Group (‘DQG’). The DQG will be responsible for developing mechanisms to assess and monitor data quality, overseeing enhancements to documentation functionality, and leading targeted quality improvement initiatives. The drafting of the DQG’s terms of reference has specifically addressed the matters raised within the PFD, ensuring that the DQG’s work programme is both data-driven and aligned with identified risks.”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 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

Design and oversee targeted documentation quality-improvement projects before wider rollout.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the referenced problem list functionality was not yet deployed at the time of the incident (as the previous electronic patient record system was still in operation), the Trust acknowledges there is scope to enhance both EPIC’s documentation capabilities and the guidance provided to clinicians regarding its use. Therefore, in response to the concerns raised, the Trust has committed to establishing a cross-Trust EPIC Documentation Quality Group (‘DQG’). The DQG will be responsible for developing mechanisms to assess and monitor data quality, overseeing enhancements to documentation functionality, and leading targeted quality improvement initiatives. The drafting of the DQG’s terms of reference has specifically addressed the matters raised within the PFD, ensuring that the DQG’s work programme is both data-driven and aligned with identified risks.”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 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

Present and discuss the Problem List Etiquette Guide at clinical and governance forums to disseminate learning from the PFD.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Subject to final approval, it is anticipated that the DQG will be operational from early 2026 and will report through existing EPIC governance and oversight structures. The draft terms of reference can be found in Appendix 1 (attached). It is planned to sign off the scope and membership of the meeting across both Trusts in January. In the meantime, the Problem List Etiquette Guide will be tabled and discussed at the Clinical Directors Meeting and the Governance Lead Forum in early 2026 so that learning in relation to the PFD can be facilitated.”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 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

Review EPIC teaching and training and update materials to cover audit requirements and completed build changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Review current EPIC teaching & training | Ensure that the audit end-points are adequately covered in current induction / other training. Update materials to cover the completed build changes”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 11 November 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

Engage residents and senior clinicians to identify barriers to documentation best practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Engage with residents and senior clinicians to identify barriers to best practice”

Source location

Response from Kings College Hospital NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 November 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