PFD report

Lee James STAMMERS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Aug 2025•South 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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 raised3

  1. Failure of systems and documentation to identify whether requested investigations had been performed
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable completion and tracking of requested clinical investigations
  2. Failure to control and record cancellation of tests and actions by temporary or unauthorised users
  3. Failure to maintain accurate medical records and communicate information needed for urgent tests
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely urgent diagnostic investigations
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.5

  1. Action

    Introduce a local Emergency Department quality-improvement initiative focused on communication and contemporaneous documentation.

    Stated by Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 September 2025.
  2. Action

    Implement the identified communication and documentation immediate safety actions in the Emergency Department under senior-doctor oversight.

    Stated by Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 September 2025.
  3. Action

    Restrict Symphony user permissions for student nurses to prevent changes to prescribed care.

    Stated by Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 September 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 systems and documentation to identify whether requested investigations had been performed

Wider context from the report

“(1) Poor documentation, Communication, and systems– There were no clear communication, documentation, or systems in place, to identify if investigations had been performed as requested. For example, the medical records indicated blood had been obtained and collected by the laboratory and the result was awaited. When blood had not been obtained. Inaccurate information in the medical records and poor communication, led to a failure of urgent tests being undertaken. A comparable situation occurred, in relation to confusion regarding the performance of the electrocardiogram. Poor communication, documentation, and systems allowed tests/actions to be cancelled by student nurses, temporary staff and locum clinicians, who can also access the system and cancel tests without any rationale, accountability or identifying themselves in the records. These individuals were referred to as “unknown” at the inquest and have not been identified. Finally, there was clear and consistent evidence of poor documentation throughout the medical records, from admission to the emergency department continuing through to the resuscitation attempts. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable completion and tracking of requested clinical investigations.

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 control and record cancellation of tests and actions by temporary or unauthorised users

Wider context from the report

“(1) Poor documentation, Communication, and systems– There were no clear communication, documentation, or systems in place, to identify if investigations had been performed as requested. For example, the medical records indicated blood had been obtained and collected by the laboratory and the result was awaited. When blood had not been obtained. Inaccurate information in the medical records and poor communication, led to a failure of urgent tests being undertaken. A comparable situation occurred, in relation to confusion regarding the performance of the electrocardiogram. Poor communication, documentation, and systems allowed tests/actions to be cancelled by student nurses, temporary staff and locum clinicians, who can also access the system and cancel tests without any rationale, accountability or identifying themselves in the records. These individuals were referred to as “unknown” at the inquest and have not been identified. Finally, there was clear and consistent evidence of poor documentation throughout the medical records, from admission to the emergency department continuing through to the resuscitation attempts. ”

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 maintain accurate medical records and communicate information needed for urgent tests

Wider context from the report

“(1) Poor documentation, Communication, and systems– There were no clear communication, documentation, or systems in place, to identify if investigations had been performed as requested. For example, the medical records indicated blood had been obtained and collected by the laboratory and the result was awaited. When blood had not been obtained. Inaccurate information in the medical records and poor communication, led to a failure of urgent tests being undertaken. A comparable situation occurred, in relation to confusion regarding the performance of the electrocardiogram. Poor communication, documentation, and systems allowed tests/actions to be cancelled by student nurses, temporary staff and locum clinicians, who can also access the system and cancel tests without any rationale, accountability or identifying themselves in the records. These individuals were referred to as “unknown” at the inquest and have not been identified. Finally, there was clear and consistent evidence of poor documentation throughout the medical records, from admission to the emergency department continuing through to the resuscitation attempts. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely urgent diagnostic investigations.

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

Introduce a local Emergency Department quality-improvement initiative focused on communication and contemporaneous documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Safety Recommendation 4 – The ED to introduce a local quality improvement initiative focusing on enhancing communication and contemporaneous documentation in both emergency and non-emergency situations.”

Source location

Response from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 1 September 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

Implement the identified communication and documentation immediate safety actions in the Emergency Department under senior-doctor oversight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Mr Stammers’ case was formally presented to the Learning from Patient Safety Events (LFPSE) Panel with the declaration of a Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII). During this meeting, Immediate Safety Actions were identified and shared with the relevant division to ensure prompt implementation.”

Source location

Response from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 1 September 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

Restrict Symphony user permissions for student nurses to prevent changes to prescribed care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Safety Recommendation 3 - Symphony user access to be reviewed and permissions changed to prevent user changes to prescribed care errors. Urgent & Emergency Care to consider how locum access can be strengthened to ensure traceability and an audit trail.”

Source location

Response from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 1 September 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

Develop and implement a chest-pain standing operating procedure defining required clinical assessment and investigations in the Emergency Department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Safety Recommendation 2 - The ED should develop Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure standardised care within the ED when patients present with chest pain. This should include expectations of the clinical assessment and investigation required. Once implemented, this should be followed by education and training for all ED staff.”

Source location

Response from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 1 September 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

Require locum doctors to enter their full name and GMC number on first Symphony login to provide traceability and an audit trail.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Safety Recommendation 3 - Symphony user access to be reviewed and permissions changed to prevent user changes to prescribed care errors. Urgent & Emergency Care to consider how locum access can be strengthened to ensure traceability and an audit trail.”

Source location

Response from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 1 September 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.3

  1. 1

    Review the Emergency Department procedure for monitoring observations and escalation of care, and communicate it to staff.

    Stated by Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 September 2025.
  2. 2

    Provide education and training to all Emergency Department staff on the chest-pain standing operating procedure.

    Stated by Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 September 2025.
  3. 3

    Audit the effectiveness of the Emergency Department monitoring-observations and escalation-of-care procedure.

    Stated by Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 September 2025.

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 the Emergency Department procedure for monitoring observations and escalation of care, and communicate it to staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Safety Recommendation 1 - The Emergency Department (ED) should review their departmental procedure regarding the frequency of Monitoring Observations and Escalation of Care in the Emergency Department and ensure this is clearly communicated to all staff. Once implemented, audit the effectiveness of the procedure.”

Source location

Response from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 1 September 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

Provide education and training to all Emergency Department staff on the chest-pain standing operating procedure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Safety Recommendation 2 - The ED should develop Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure standardised care within the ED when patients present with chest pain. This should include expectations of the clinical assessment and investigation required. Once implemented, this should be followed by education and training for all ED staff.”

Source location

Response from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 1 September 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

Audit the effectiveness of the Emergency Department monitoring-observations and escalation-of-care procedure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Safety Recommendation 1 - The Emergency Department (ED) should review their departmental procedure regarding the frequency of Monitoring Observations and Escalation of Care in the Emergency Department and ensure this is clearly communicated to all staff. Once implemented, audit the effectiveness of the procedure.”

Source location

Response from Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 1 September 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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026