PFD report

Kenneth Longley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Mar 2018•Manchester South

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
0

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 refer patients to Cardiology following relevant clinical findings or correspondence
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably refer patients to required specialist servicesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence
  2. Delays in sending specialist clinical letters
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical correspondence from healthcare services to GPs
  3. Failure to conduct requested GP reviews
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide sufficient GP involvement in patient care
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 refer patients to Cardiology following relevant clinical findings or correspondence

Wider context from the report

“The letter from ████████, which was received by the GP surgery on the 7th August 2017, referred to an echocardiogram on the 16th May 2017 which confirmed severe aortic stenosis. It asked the GP surgery to arrange for Mr Longley for a specialist cardiology opinion and for him to be reassessed by the GP regarding any further syncopal episodes. The concern is that no action was taken by any GP at the practice to either refer Mr Longley to Cardiology in light of Dr Chambers’ letter or in light of the reported echocardiogram results. Further, no action was taken by any GP to review Mr Longley as requested. The concern is that there is a risk of future deaths if similar lack of action occurs in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably refer patients to required specialist services; Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence.

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

Delays in sending specialist clinical letters

Wider context from the report

“The letter from Doctor████████to Mr Longley’s GP was sent out on the 7th August 2017, nearly 3 months following the echocardiogram on the 16th May 2017. This appears to be a significant delay████████explained in evidence that there had been a delay in obtaining the medical records needed for████████to write the report to the GP but the cause of that delay was not known. It was not clear why the letter was only written on the 29th July 2017 and then not sent out until the 7th August 2017. Mr Longley had severe aortic stenosis. The evidence suggested that cardiac surgery would have been offered to Mr Longley and would have taken place within 3-6 months. In this case, it was not possible to determine whether the outcome would have been different for Mr Longley had the letter been sent out in a timely fashion. The concern is that there is a risk of future death if there is a delay in sending out similar letters in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical correspondence from healthcare services to GPs.

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 conduct requested GP reviews

Wider context from the report

“The letter from ████████, which was received by the GP surgery on the 7th August 2017, referred to an echocardiogram on the 16th May 2017 which confirmed severe aortic stenosis. It asked the GP surgery to arrange for Mr Longley for a specialist cardiology opinion and for him to be reassessed by the GP regarding any further syncopal episodes. The concern is that no action was taken by any GP at the practice to either refer Mr Longley to Cardiology in light of Dr Chambers’ letter or in light of the reported echocardiogram results. Further, no action was taken by any GP to review Mr Longley as requested. The concern is that there is a risk of future deaths if similar lack of action occurs in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide sufficient GP involvement in patient care.

Open source report
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
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.