PFD report

Mr Kevin George Mann · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Jun 2017•East London

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
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 raised6

  1. Failure to abandon the procedure after contrast entered the left main bronchus
  2. Failure to avoid the swallow procedure in the presence of a left pneumothorax
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of pneumothorax
  3. Failure to adequately review the Visipaque procedure policy
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

    Implement the revised Visipaque protocol requiring specific informed consent and communication between radiologists and referring clinicians before investigations.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2017.

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 abandon the procedure after contrast entered the left main bronchus

Wider context from the report

“3. The radiologist continued with the procedure after becoming aware of the passage of contrast material into the left main bronchus. The consultant surgeon and independent radiologist confirmed that the procedure should have been abandoned at that stage. ”

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 avoid the swallow procedure in the presence of a left pneumothorax

Wider context from the report

“1. An independent radiology expert confirmed that the left pneumothorax was clearly apparent from the imaging, prior to the swallow commencing. The independent expert, consultant surgeon and consultant intensivist all agreed that the procedure should not have been carried out, in light of the pneumothorax. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of pneumothorax.

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 adequately review the Visipaque procedure policy

Wider context from the report

“5. The policy in place regarding the Visipaque procedure does not require documentation of the amount of contrast material used, or for preliminary checks to be undertaken. The incident occurred over a year ago. Despite clear concerns being raised by the Consultant surgeon on 27 May 2016, there had been no adequate review of the Visipaque procedure policy, by the date of the Inquest hearing. ”

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

Visipaque procedure policy failing to require contrast documentation and preliminary checks

Wider context from the report

“5. The policy in place regarding the Visipaque procedure does not require documentation of the amount of contrast material used, or for preliminary checks to be undertaken. The incident occurred over a year ago. Despite clear concerns being raised by the Consultant surgeon on 27 May 2016, there had been no adequate review of the Visipaque procedure policy, by the date of the Inquest hearing. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe updating of clinical policies and guidance.

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 check recent radiology before commencing the swallow procedure

Wider context from the report

“2. The radiologist who performed the procedure did not check the radiology system prior to commencing the swallow procedure. Had she checked the system she would have seen the x-ray taken at 12:37 showing the large left pneumothorax. She would also have seen the outstanding request for a chest x-ray. Both the independent radiology expert and the Trust radiology witness (Dr G), confirmed that recent radiology should be checked by the radiologist prior to performing this procedure. ”

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 document the amount of contrast handed over and ingested

Wider context from the report

“4. There was no documentation available within the records of the amount of contrast handed to Mr Mann or the amount of contrast ingested by him. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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

Implement the revised Visipaque protocol requiring specific informed consent and communication between radiologists and referring clinicians before investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust’s Radiology Department has carried out an audit of Visipaque Swallows from May 2016 – June 2017 and will conduct a further audit three months after the revised Protocol (attached) has come into use to ensure understanding and compliance. If any issues are identified by the audit, the staff concerned will have 1:1 conversations with one of the Clinical Leads for Radiology and be required to undergo an observed procedure for assurance of skill.”

Source location

2017-0190-Response-by-Barking-Havering-and-Redbridge-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 2017

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

    Conduct a further Visipaque swallow audit three months after the revised protocol comes into use to assess understanding and compliance.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2017.
  2. 2

    Complete an audit of Visipaque swallows conducted between May 2016 and June 2017.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 August 2017.
  3. 3

    Continuously monitor inpatients and outpatients undergoing Visipaque swallow investigations and provide appropriate clinicians to answer questions on the day.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2017.

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

  1. 1

    The referring clinician retains overall responsibility for the patient and provides the clinical information needed to manage contrast risks before radiology investigations.

    Stated by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Conduct a further Visipaque swallow audit three months after the revised protocol comes into use to assess understanding and compliance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust’s Radiology Department has carried out an audit of Visipaque Swallows from May 2016 – June 2017 and will conduct a further audit three months after the revised Protocol (attached) has come into use to ensure understanding and compliance. If any issues are identified by the audit, the staff concerned will have 1:1 conversations with one of the Clinical Leads for Radiology and be required to undergo an observed procedure for assurance of skill.”

Source location

2017-0190-Response-by-Barking-Havering-and-Redbridge-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 2017

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 an audit of Visipaque swallows conducted between May 2016 and June 2017.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust’s Radiology Department has carried out an audit of Visipaque Swallows from May 2016 – June 2017 and will conduct a further audit three months after the revised Protocol (attached) has come into use to ensure understanding and compliance. If any issues are identified by the audit, the staff concerned will have 1:1 conversations with one of the Clinical Leads for Radiology and be required to undergo an observed procedure for assurance of skill.”

Source location

2017-0190-Response-by-Barking-Havering-and-Redbridge-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 2017

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

Continuously monitor inpatients and outpatients undergoing Visipaque swallow investigations and provide appropriate clinicians to answer questions on the day.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Patients will be continuously monitored when presenting for Visipaque swallow investigations –”

Source location

2017-0190-Response-by-Barking-Havering-and-Redbridge-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 2017

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 referring clinician retains overall responsibility for the patient and provides the clinical information needed to manage contrast risks before radiology investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The updated protocol also recognizes the need for specific informed consent to be obtained from the patient prior to Radiology procedures being undertaken. Obtaining such consent is in line with guidance from the GMC, the Department of Health and is usually part of any NHS Trust’s consent policy. Whilst the Referring clinician (recommending the scan) has overall responsibility for the patient and has the most accurate clinical information on the patient, the Protocol provides communication guidelines between the Radiologist and the Referring clinician in order that any underlying pathology or existing comorbidities which may have a significant contrast risk can be noted and discussed, for the best clinical management of the patient prior to any radiology investigations being conducted.”

Source location

2017-0190-Response-by-Barking-Havering-and-Redbridge-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 2017

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