PFD report

Mr Christopher Granville Bradbury · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Mar 2025•Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

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 raised5

  1. Failure of PSII actions to achieve effective safety improvement
  2. Failure of continuous training to achieve effective learning
  3. Lack of national guidelines on severe invasive soft tissue infections
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

    Deliver a significant programme of training and share learning from the case across clinical teams.

    Stated by University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 March 2025.
  2. Action

    Implement electronic prescribing and medicines administration across both Trust sites to record medication omissions, reasons and decision-makers.

    Stated by University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 March 2025.
  3. Action

    Continue education through formal teaching and case-based discussions on severe invasive soft tissue infections.

    Stated by University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 March 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    Developing national clinical guidelines for Severe Invasive Soft Tissue Infections is outside the organisation’s direct responsibility.

    Stated by University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 PSII actions to achieve effective safety improvement

Wider context from the report

“ii) The evidence given was that, training is being delivered continuously, and the actions from the PSII have been carried out but this is not making significant inroads, it had not been effective at all, and it is thought that this will happen again. ”

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 of continuous training to achieve effective learning

Wider context from the report

“ii) The evidence given was that, training is being delivered continuously, and the actions from the PSII have been carried out but this is not making significant inroads, it had not been effective at all, and it is thought that this will happen again. ”

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

Lack of national guidelines on severe invasive soft tissue infections

Wider context from the report

“i) A national lack of knowledge of Severe Invasive Soft Tissue Infections, that are not (but are closely related to) necrotising fasciitis combined with a lack of national Guidelines on this. This being exacerbated by the large number of Drs expected to specialise in this. ”

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

National lack of knowledge of severe invasive soft tissue infections

Wider context from the report

“i) A national lack of knowledge of Severe Invasive Soft Tissue Infections, that are not (but are closely related to) necrotising fasciitis combined with a lack of national Guidelines on this. This being exacerbated by the large number of Drs expected to specialise in this. ”

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 an audit trail for omitted medication doses

Wider context from the report

“iii) When signing medication out, at the hospital, if the medication is not available, no signature is required when choosing option 5 “omitted dose”. This means that there is no audit train, if a patient is not given their medication, because it is unavailable, or omitted for some other reason. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable management of medication doses not taken.

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

Deliver a significant programme of training and share learning from the case across clinical teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Within our Trust, we continue to take the issue of training very seriously. We have already undertaken a significant programme of training and learning following this case, ensuring key themes and learning have been widely shared across our clinical teams.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 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 electronic prescribing and medicines administration across both Trust sites to record medication omissions, reasons and decision-makers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. With regard to the concern raised about medication omissions and the lack of an auditable trail when a dose is not administered, I can confirm that currently we do not have an Electronic Prescribing and Medicines Administration (EPMA) system in place at our Trust.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 3 · response
Published 11 March 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

Continue education through formal teaching and case-based discussions on severe invasive soft tissue infections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are committed to continuing this education, both through formal teaching and case-based discussions. However, again, we do recognise that due to the rarity and complexity of these presentations, training alone will not always ensure early recognition. To that end, we will continue to emphasise the importance of early escalation and senior clinical review where there is any concern about deteriorating soft tissue infections. We believe that early involvement of senior decision-makers, particularly consultants who may have greater experience with rare or atypical presentations, is imperative to supporting early diagnosis and appropriate intervention.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 3 · response
Published 11 March 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 staff to document reasons for drug omissions in patient records through a circulated Patient Safety Learning Alert.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the interim, we have developed a Patient Safety Learning Alert requiring staff to document reasons for drug omissions. These omissions are to be documented within the relevant patient record. This alert has been circulated to all staff and is enclosed for your review.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 3 · response
Published 11 March 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

Seek to emphasise escalation of deteriorating patients in revised infection prevention and control training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is an opportunity this year to revisit statutory and mandatory training for infection and prevention control and my Antimicrobial Resistance colleagues will seek to ensure emphasis on escalation of deteriorating patients.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 11 March 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

Developing national clinical guidelines for Severe Invasive Soft Tissue Infections is outside the organisation’s direct responsibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As an individual NHS organisation, we are not directly responsible for developing national clinical guidelines, however, we would fully support any national work to raise awareness of these rare but serious infections, and the development of clear diagnostic and management guidance. We also accept the challenge presented in ensuring wide clinical awareness of rare conditions, particularly in environments where staff rotate frequently, and experience may be limited. This challenge is compounded further by the relative rarity of such presentations, meaning that many clinicians may never have encountered a case during their training or practice. Nevertheless, ████████ will continue with the important work he is undertaking in this area.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 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

UHNM or Royal Stoke University Hospital should respond to concerns about the effectiveness of Patient Safety Incident Investigation actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your second concern was that actions identified in the Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) have not made significant inroads or been effective. I note that you have also sent your Report to the Royal Stoke University Hospital and it is appropriate that they or University Hospitals of North Midlands (UHNM) NHS Trust to respond to your regarding this concern. NHS England regional colleagues are also in the process of engaging with Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board (ICB), the commissioner of UHNM, on the concerns raised by your Report for assurance purposes.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 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

Responsibility for clinical guidance rests with NICE, so further guidance concerns should be directed to NICE.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The responsibility for clinical guidance sits with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the current relevant guidance is available here: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/conditions-and-diseases/infections/skin-infections/products?GuidanceProgramme=guidelines. NICE have also produced a Clinical Knowledge Summary (CKS) on impetigo and cellulitis, which include treatment options for severe infection and referral/escalation criteria for specialist input.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 11 March 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

Further NHS England comment on the reported concerns is not possible based on the information provided.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is not possible for NHS England to provide further comment based on the information provided in your Report.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 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

Relevant guidance for severe soft-tissue infections already exists, disputing the reported national lack of guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The first matter of concern raised in your Report was that there is a national lack of knowledge and guidelines of severe invasive soft tissue infections, that are not necrotising fasciitis.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 11 March 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

Electronic prescribing systems and existing nursing record requirements address accountability and escalation risks for omitted medication doses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Electronic Prescribing and Medicines Administration (EPMA) systems eliminate the lack of signature and accountability issue raised by the Coroner because a person would need to be logged into the system to record a missed dose and there would therefore be the requirement of a digital signature. Within EPMAs there is also the facility to include alerts that would prompt the person recording a missed dose if this were a critical drug that shouldn’t usually be omitted.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 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

    Continue emphasising early escalation and senior clinical review for suspected deteriorating soft tissue infections.

    Stated by University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 March 2025.
  2. 2

    Discuss all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 March 2025.
  3. 3

    Engage the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board regarding the report’s concerns for assurance purposes.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 March 2025.

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

  1. 1

    UKHSA is responsible for surgical-site-infection surveillance, guidance, data and analysis, so those concerns should be directed to UKHSA.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects 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

Continue emphasising early escalation and senior clinical review for suspected deteriorating soft tissue infections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are committed to continuing this education, both through formal teaching and case-based discussions. However, again, we do recognise that due to the rarity and complexity of these presentations, training alone will not always ensure early recognition. To that end, we will continue to emphasise the importance of early escalation and senior clinical review where there is any concern about deteriorating soft tissue infections. We believe that early involvement of senior decision-makers, particularly consultants who may have greater experience with rare or atypical presentations, is imperative to supporting early diagnosis and appropriate intervention.”

Source location

Response from Royal Stoke University Hospital
Page 3 · response
Published 11 March 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

Discuss all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Christopher, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action. .”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 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 the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board regarding the report’s concerns for assurance purposes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your second concern was that actions identified in the Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) have not made significant inroads or been effective. I note that you have also sent your Report to the Royal Stoke University Hospital and it is appropriate that they or University Hospitals of North Midlands (UHNM) NHS Trust to respond to your regarding this concern. NHS England regional colleagues are also in the process of engaging with Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board (ICB), the commissioner of UHNM, on the concerns raised by your Report for assurance purposes.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 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

UKHSA is responsible for surgical-site-infection surveillance, guidance, data and analysis, so those concerns should be directed to UKHSA.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) are also responsible for surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance, guidance, data and analysis, which includes escalating matters to providers where appropriate. You may therefore wish to refer your concerns to NICE and/or the UKHSA.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 11 March 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026