PFD report

Karen Lesley SUTTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Sep 2013•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

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 to provide prophylactic antibiotic medication at discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure patients receive the correct prescribed medication at hospital dischargePart of recurring concern: Failure to provide indicated antibiotic prophylaxisPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide required medication promptly when clinically neededPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  2. Failure to arrange the patient's next outpatient appointment
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable tracking and follow-up of outpatient appointments
  3. Failure to share hospital admissions with the Immunology team
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably notify specialist teams of hospital admissions and discharges
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.6

  1. Action

    Ask every Consultant to identify complex patients in their service for inclusion in the admission alert process.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 September 2013.
  2. Action

    Remind all Consultants of their duty to contact specialist teams when complex patients require care beyond their competence.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 September 2013.
  3. Action

    Discuss systems and processes across all three Trust sites for flagging and communicating medicines that must continue after discharge.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 September 2013.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Patients may appropriately arrange their own outpatient appointments where clinical circumstances permit, alongside existing discharge and information-sharing arrangements.

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

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 provide prophylactic antibiotic medication at discharge

Wider context from the report

“(1) Not withstanding her 12 year history of regular Immunology follow-up, the team were not notified of her admission to hospital , on either occasion during August and September 2012, and thus given the opportunity to have input into her care and her discharge. (2) Mrs Sutton was discharged home without prophylactic antibiotic medication (3) Mrs Sutton was left to arrange her next out patient appointment and it was fortuitous that ████████ was able to see her after the day of discharge, 4th October 2012. (4) ████████ was unaware of any Trust policy to share admissions between departments. He acknowledged this as a Learning point and although he has personally instigated a practice to encourage patients and /or their relatives to let his department know of any admissions, this is neither robust or in some circumstances practical and cannot be relied upon as a means of communication Trust-wide. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure patients receive the correct prescribed medication at hospital discharge; Failure to provide indicated antibiotic prophylaxis; Failure to provide required medication promptly when clinically needed; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 arrange the patient's next outpatient appointment

Wider context from the report

“(1) Not withstanding her 12 year history of regular Immunology follow-up, the team were not notified of her admission to hospital , on either occasion during August and September 2012, and thus given the opportunity to have input into her care and her discharge. (2) Mrs Sutton was discharged home without prophylactic antibiotic medication (3) Mrs Sutton was left to arrange her next out patient appointment and it was fortuitous that ████████ was able to see her after the day of discharge, 4th October 2012. (4) ████████ was unaware of any Trust policy to share admissions between departments. He acknowledged this as a Learning point and although he has personally instigated a practice to encourage patients and /or their relatives to let his department know of any admissions, this is neither robust or in some circumstances practical and cannot be relied upon as a means of communication Trust-wide. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable tracking and follow-up of outpatient appointments.

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 share hospital admissions with the Immunology team

Wider context from the report

“(1) Not withstanding her 12 year history of regular Immunology follow-up, the team were not notified of her admission to hospital , on either occasion during August and September 2012, and thus given the opportunity to have input into her care and her discharge. (2) Mrs Sutton was discharged home without prophylactic antibiotic medication (3) Mrs Sutton was left to arrange her next out patient appointment and it was fortuitous that ████████ was able to see her after the day of discharge, 4th October 2012. (4) ████████ was unaware of any Trust policy to share admissions between departments. He acknowledged this as a Learning point and although he has personally instigated a practice to encourage patients and /or their relatives to let his department know of any admissions, this is neither robust or in some circumstances practical and cannot be relied upon as a means of communication Trust-wide. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably notify specialist teams of hospital admissions and discharges.

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

Ask every Consultant to identify complex patients in their service for inclusion in the admission alert process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b) We have investigated the possibility of an IT solution. By the beginning of April 2014 we expect to have available to us a piece of software which will allow daily alerting to Consultants or their teams about any patient whom they have previously identified as individuals whose care needs are complex and who would therefore require specialist help from them or their team in the event of an admission to the Trust. In the run-up to the ████████ ████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████”

Source location

2013-0223-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Leicester
Page 1 · response
Published 4 September 2013

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

Remind all Consultants of their duty to contact specialist teams when complex patients require care beyond their competence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When Mrs Sutton was admitted the following process was in place and should have been followed. The admitting Consultant should ensure that s/he is aware of the clinical needs of the patient and further ensure that s/he consults appropriately with other clinical specialties where the patient has complex needs which fall outside of that consultant’s competence. As a result of your concerns we have strengthened our current process by undertaking the following actions:”

Source location

2013-0223-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Leicester
Page 1 · response
Published 4 September 2013

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 systems and processes across all three Trust sites for flagging and communicating medicines that must continue after discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition as a result of your second concern our Chief Pharmacist will explore the current level of knowledge of ward-based technicians on prophylactic antibiotics post splenectomy. This case will be discussed at clinical meetings on all three Trust sites to discuss systems and processes that can be implemented to ensure that drugs that must continue on discharge can be flagged and clearly communicated. Both of these actions will be concluded by the end of November 2013. This case will be discussed at the Trust’s Medicines Management Board in December 2013. In addition the junior doctors involved in the care of Mrs Sutton will be particularly reminded about the importance of fully considering pre-admission medication.”

Source location

2013-0223-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Leicester
Page 2 · response
Published 4 September 2013

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

Explore ward-based technicians’ knowledge of prophylactic antibiotics required after splenectomy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition as a result of your second concern our Chief Pharmacist will explore the current level of knowledge of ward-based technicians on prophylactic antibiotics post splenectomy. This case will be discussed at clinical meetings on all three Trust sites to discuss systems and processes that can be implemented to ensure that drugs that must continue on discharge can be flagged and clearly communicated. Both of these actions will be concluded by the end of November 2013. This case will be discussed at the Trust’s Medicines Management Board in December 2013. In addition the junior doctors involved in the care of Mrs Sutton will be particularly reminded about the importance of fully considering pre-admission medication.”

Source location

2013-0223-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Leicester
Page 2 · response
Published 4 September 2013

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

Make software available to provide daily alerts about previously identified complex patients requiring specialist input after admission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b) We have investigated the possibility of an IT solution. By the beginning of April 2014 we expect to have available to us a piece of software which will allow daily alerting to Consultants or their teams about any patient whom they have previously identified as individuals whose care needs are complex and who would therefore require specialist help from them or their team in the event of an admission to the Trust. In the run-up to the ████████ ████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████”

Source location

2013-0223-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Leicester
Page 1 · response
Published 4 September 2013

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

Remind the junior doctors involved to fully consider patients’ pre-admission medication.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition as a result of your second concern our Chief Pharmacist will explore the current level of knowledge of ward-based technicians on prophylactic antibiotics post splenectomy. This case will be discussed at clinical meetings on all three Trust sites to discuss systems and processes that can be implemented to ensure that drugs that must continue on discharge can be flagged and clearly communicated. Both of these actions will be concluded by the end of November 2013. This case will be discussed at the Trust’s Medicines Management Board in December 2013. In addition the junior doctors involved in the care of Mrs Sutton will be particularly reminded about the importance of fully considering pre-admission medication.”

Source location

2013-0223-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Leicester
Page 2 · response
Published 4 September 2013

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

Patients may appropriately arrange their own outpatient appointments where clinical circumstances permit, alongside existing discharge and information-sharing arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As to your third concern the circumstances surrounding the outpatient appointment with ████████ are unusual. I am informed that the on the 25th May 2012 an outpatient appointment with ████████ was booked for 4th October 2012 in accordance with normal procedures. As you are aware Mrs Sutton was subsequently admitted under the care of the respiratory team. It would seem that whilst there was a plan made on the 2nd October 2012 to cancel this appointment, as Mrs Sutton was then an inpatient, our Patient Administration system (HISS) indicates that this cancellation had not been put into effect by the 3rd October when Mrs Sutton was discharged. A plan was therefore made, prior to discharge, that Mrs Sutton should attend her pre-arranged appointment on 4th October 2012 with ████████.”

Source location

2013-0223-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Leicester
Page 2 · response
Published 4 September 2013

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.1

  1. 1

    Discuss the case at the Trust Medicines Management Board.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 September 2013.

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 the case at the Trust Medicines Management Board.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition as a result of your second concern our Chief Pharmacist will explore the current level of knowledge of ward-based technicians on prophylactic antibiotics post splenectomy. This case will be discussed at clinical meetings on all three Trust sites to discuss systems and processes that can be implemented to ensure that drugs that must continue on discharge can be flagged and clearly communicated. Both of these actions will be concluded by the end of November 2013. This case will be discussed at the Trust’s Medicines Management Board in December 2013. In addition the junior doctors involved in the care of Mrs Sutton will be particularly reminded about the importance of fully considering pre-admission medication.”

Source location

2013-0223-Response-by-University-Hospitals-of-Leicester
Page 2 · response
Published 4 September 2013

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