PFD report

Lindy Lyanne ASTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Dec 2023•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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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. Delays in Trust investigation of serious care concerns
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
  2. Failure to raise incident reports for serious care concerns
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents
  3. Failure of Trust investigations to identify critical care and treatment findings
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident 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.3

  1. Action

    Rewrite and implement the mortality-review policy for externally identified concerns, including formal notification, committee oversight, Structured Judgement Review, escalation and multidisciplinary review.

    Stated by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 December 2023.
  2. Action

    Introduce and roll out Stop the Line across the Trust, incorporating concerns into Datix reporting and daily team huddles.

    Stated by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 December 2023.
  3. Action

    Continue reviewing existing routes for raising concerns and challenging clinical decisions to reinforce the Trust’s safety culture.

    Stated by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 December 2023.

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

  1. Position

    The round table panel concluded that no further action was necessary regarding the concerns about the patient's care.

    Stated by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation TrustNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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

Delays in Trust investigation of serious care concerns

Wider context from the report

“2) Trust investigations into Mrs Aston’s care – I am gravely concerned about the seeming inadequacies in the investigation and/or incident reporting processes at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust. The inquest was advised that a DATIX incident report was not raised in relation to Mrs Aston’s care or death. I am concerned about the fact that Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did not look into the care provided to Mrs Aston until such time as the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust contacted them about the inquest. I am further concerned about the fact that when Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did look into the care provided to Mrs Aston they did so on the assumption that the clinical decision making had been appropriate, this makes the exploration of the care provided somewhat otiose. The Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston failed to identify the fact that surgery should have been undertaken within an hour and the fact that, despite some of the assurances to the contrary, it would have been appropriate and possible to undertake that life-saving surgery at Kettering General Hospital. The failure to properly investigate led to the wholly untenable situation where the Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust were alerted for the first time to the questionable clinical decision making and the potential errors in care at the inquest, which took place some 24 months after death (due to witness availability). I am concerned that the lack of robust critical analysis and investigation of the clinical decision making and care provided to Mrs Aston at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust before her death has caused a delay to, and led to missed opportunities to learn lessons that are vital to patient safety. My concerns relating to the inadequacy of the Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston and the risks related to that go far beyond just the care provided by the Surgical Team at Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust. The risks have the ability to prevent learning, therefore negatively impact upon patient safety, across the entire Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident 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 raise incident reports for serious care concerns

Wider context from the report

“2) Trust investigations into Mrs Aston’s care – I am gravely concerned about the seeming inadequacies in the investigation and/or incident reporting processes at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust. The inquest was advised that a DATIX incident report was not raised in relation to Mrs Aston’s care or death. I am concerned about the fact that Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did not look into the care provided to Mrs Aston until such time as the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust contacted them about the inquest. I am further concerned about the fact that when Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did look into the care provided to Mrs Aston they did so on the assumption that the clinical decision making had been appropriate, this makes the exploration of the care provided somewhat otiose. The Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston failed to identify the fact that surgery should have been undertaken within an hour and the fact that, despite some of the assurances to the contrary, it would have been appropriate and possible to undertake that life-saving surgery at Kettering General Hospital. The failure to properly investigate led to the wholly untenable situation where the Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust were alerted for the first time to the questionable clinical decision making and the potential errors in care at the inquest, which took place some 24 months after death (due to witness availability). I am concerned that the lack of robust critical analysis and investigation of the clinical decision making and care provided to Mrs Aston at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust before her death has caused a delay to, and led to missed opportunities to learn lessons that are vital to patient safety. My concerns relating to the inadequacy of the Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston and the risks related to that go far beyond just the care provided by the Surgical Team at Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust. The risks have the ability to prevent learning, therefore negatively impact upon patient safety, across the entire Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents.

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 Trust investigations to identify critical care and treatment findings

Wider context from the report

“2) Trust investigations into Mrs Aston’s care – I am gravely concerned about the seeming inadequacies in the investigation and/or incident reporting processes at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust. The inquest was advised that a DATIX incident report was not raised in relation to Mrs Aston’s care or death. I am concerned about the fact that Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did not look into the care provided to Mrs Aston until such time as the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust contacted them about the inquest. I am further concerned about the fact that when Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did look into the care provided to Mrs Aston they did so on the assumption that the clinical decision making had been appropriate, this makes the exploration of the care provided somewhat otiose. The Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston failed to identify the fact that surgery should have been undertaken within an hour and the fact that, despite some of the assurances to the contrary, it would have been appropriate and possible to undertake that life-saving surgery at Kettering General Hospital. The failure to properly investigate led to the wholly untenable situation where the Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust were alerted for the first time to the questionable clinical decision making and the potential errors in care at the inquest, which took place some 24 months after death (due to witness availability). I am concerned that the lack of robust critical analysis and investigation of the clinical decision making and care provided to Mrs Aston at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust before her death has caused a delay to, and led to missed opportunities to learn lessons that are vital to patient safety. My concerns relating to the inadequacy of the Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston and the risks related to that go far beyond just the care provided by the Surgical Team at Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust. The risks have the ability to prevent learning, therefore negatively impact upon patient safety, across the entire Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident 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

Lack of robust critical analysis to deliver timely patient-safety learning

Wider context from the report

“2) Trust investigations into Mrs Aston’s care – I am gravely concerned about the seeming inadequacies in the investigation and/or incident reporting processes at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust. The inquest was advised that a DATIX incident report was not raised in relation to Mrs Aston’s care or death. I am concerned about the fact that Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did not look into the care provided to Mrs Aston until such time as the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust contacted them about the inquest. I am further concerned about the fact that when Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did look into the care provided to Mrs Aston they did so on the assumption that the clinical decision making had been appropriate, this makes the exploration of the care provided somewhat otiose. The Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston failed to identify the fact that surgery should have been undertaken within an hour and the fact that, despite some of the assurances to the contrary, it would have been appropriate and possible to undertake that life-saving surgery at Kettering General Hospital. The failure to properly investigate led to the wholly untenable situation where the Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust were alerted for the first time to the questionable clinical decision making and the potential errors in care at the inquest, which took place some 24 months after death (due to witness availability). I am concerned that the lack of robust critical analysis and investigation of the clinical decision making and care provided to Mrs Aston at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust before her death has caused a delay to, and led to missed opportunities to learn lessons that are vital to patient safety. My concerns relating to the inadequacy of the Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston and the risks related to that go far beyond just the care provided by the Surgical Team at Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust. The risks have the ability to prevent learning, therefore negatively impact upon patient safety, across the entire Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident 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

Lack of independent checks and challenge in single-surgeon emergency operating decisions

Wider context from the report

“1) Surgical decision making – I am concerned about the fact that the decision about whether to operate on a patient or not lies with one single surgeon with seemingly no checks or balances around their decision making. It concerns me that all of the witnesses at the inquest agreed that Mrs Aston needed immediate life-saving surgery when she presented to Kettering General Hospital yet there was no challenge to the decisions made by the on-call surgeon not to operate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to supervise clinicians during clinical work.

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 impartial investigation of clinical decision-making

Wider context from the report

“2) Trust investigations into Mrs Aston’s care – I am gravely concerned about the seeming inadequacies in the investigation and/or incident reporting processes at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust. The inquest was advised that a DATIX incident report was not raised in relation to Mrs Aston’s care or death. I am concerned about the fact that Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did not look into the care provided to Mrs Aston until such time as the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust contacted them about the inquest. I am further concerned about the fact that when Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust did look into the care provided to Mrs Aston they did so on the assumption that the clinical decision making had been appropriate, this makes the exploration of the care provided somewhat otiose. The Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston failed to identify the fact that surgery should have been undertaken within an hour and the fact that, despite some of the assurances to the contrary, it would have been appropriate and possible to undertake that life-saving surgery at Kettering General Hospital. The failure to properly investigate led to the wholly untenable situation where the Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust were alerted for the first time to the questionable clinical decision making and the potential errors in care at the inquest, which took place some 24 months after death (due to witness availability). I am concerned that the lack of robust critical analysis and investigation of the clinical decision making and care provided to Mrs Aston at Kettering General Hospitals NHS Trust before her death has caused a delay to, and led to missed opportunities to learn lessons that are vital to patient safety. My concerns relating to the inadequacy of the Trust’s exploration of the care provided to Mrs Aston and the risks related to that go far beyond just the care provided by the Surgical Team at Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust. The risks have the ability to prevent learning, therefore negatively impact upon patient safety, across the entire Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident 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

Rewrite and implement the mortality-review policy for externally identified concerns, including formal notification, committee oversight, Structured Judgement Review, escalation and multidisciplinary review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have reviewed the Trusts Medical Examiner and Mortality Review and Learning from Adult Inpatient Deaths Policy (Ref GOV01). The policy is very clear in relation to the Structured Judgement Review (SJR) outcomes. Section 8 of this policy refers to the processes to be followed when the outcome of an SJR is deemed very poor or avoidable with a score of 1-3. More specifically, section 8.5 refers to the process to be followed when an SJR is referred from an external organisation, for example when a patient was treated at KGH, then transferred to another hospital, and dies. This section states that these referred concerns will go through an SJR process and governance process for mortality reviews.”

Source location

Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 December 2023

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

Introduce and roll out Stop the Line across the Trust, incorporating concerns into Datix reporting and daily team huddles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the responsibility for decision making regarding a patient’s care rests with the named consultant, all members of the clinical team are encouraged to speak up if they have any safety concerns in real time. One such example is “Stop the Line” which was been introduced into the treatment centre in May 2023 and which has been rolled out”

Source location

Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 December 2023

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 reviewing existing routes for raising concerns and challenging clinical decisions to reinforce the Trust’s safety culture.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has a well-developed Freedom to Speak Up process with an active Freedom to Speak Up Guardian and several specialty-based Freedom to Speak Up ambassadors. Freedom to Speak Up enables staff to report any concerns if they did not feel able to do so in the moment and can be done anonymously, whereas Stop the Line is aimed at empowering staff to speak up ‘in the moment’ if there are any concerns. The Trust does have safety and raising concerns as a central part of its culture work and will continue to review existing paths to reinforce raising concerns and challenging a decision.”

Source location

Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 December 2023

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 round table panel concluded that no further action was necessary regarding the concerns about the patient's care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A round table panel was convened 23/2/2022, following notification from the Coroner of Mrs Aston’s death. The panel made the decision that no further action need be taken.”

Source location

Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 December 2023

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

    Require mortality-review findings to be shared and approved through the Medical Director’s Office before external disclosure.

    Stated by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 December 2023.
  2. 2

    Prepare and circulate a learning brief to standardise messaging and clarify responsibilities.

    Stated by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 December 2023.
  3. 3

    Implement an emergency-theatre prioritisation and safe-staffing SOP, supported by daily safety huddles and escalation of identified risks.

    Stated by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 December 2023.

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 mortality-review findings to be shared and approved through the Medical Director’s Office before external disclosure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Findings to be shared and approved with the Medical Director’s Office before disclosing externally.”

Source location

Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 12 December 2023

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

Prepare and circulate a learning brief to standardise messaging and clarify responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A learning brief has been prepared and circulated to ensure consistency of messaging and understanding of responsibilities.”

Source location

Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 12 December 2023

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 an emergency-theatre prioritisation and safe-staffing SOP, supported by daily safety huddles and escalation of identified risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust acknowledges that clear processes need to be in place to ensure emergency theatre capacity is available when needed to prevent this situation happening again. A Standard Operating Policy (SOP) is in place which addresses the steps to be taken when prioritisation of emergency operations needs to be considered. The SOP considers both obstetric and general surgical emergencies in main theatres and addresses the safe staffing of emergency operating theatres throughout the 24-hour period. The safe use of theatres is monitored and managed through daily theatre safety huddles, (additional huddles are agreed if required) which are documented, and any risks clearly identified and managed or escalated as needed. This SOP was put in place following Mrs Aston’s sad death.”

Source location

Response from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 12 December 2023

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