PFD report

James Robert Curry · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Aug 2022•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
4

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 raised4

  1. Failure to provide orthopaedic bed placement for patients requiring hip fracture surgery
  2. Failure to provide NICE-compliant orthogeriatric care on admission
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient orthogeriatric provision for elderly orthopaedic trauma patients
  3. Failure to provide hip fracture surgery within NICE-compliant timescales
    Part of recurring concern: Delays in progressing time-critical surgical treatment
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

    Report surgery delays exceeding 36 hours, complete root cause analyses, and review findings weekly for learning and approved actions.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 September 2022.
  2. Action

    Monitor compliance with NICE hip-fracture guidance and submit daily data to the National Hip Fracture Database and related audit programme.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 September 2022.
  3. Action

    Operate a divisional fractured-neck-of-femur improvement programme with daily senior-leadership reporting and monitoring.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 September 2022.

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 orthopaedic bed placement for patients requiring hip fracture surgery

Wider context from the report

“1. The Inquest heard that a lengthy wait for an elderly patient with a hip fracture on a trolley in the Emergency Department will impact their physiological reserves and add to their pain. In Mr Curry’s case, the Inquest heard that the prolonged wait was due to a shortage of beds within the Trust. That situation is still the case; 2. Mr Curry needed an orthopaedic bed to enable him to have the operation. The evidence was that a shortage of beds meant that he could not be placed in one and had to go to AMU. As a consequence on admission he did not receive the orthogeriatric care envisaged by NICE in their guidance; 3. The Inquest heard that the operation should have taken place earlier than it did under the NICE guidance. The Inquest was told that the NICE guidance is based on ensuring the best outcomes for elderly patients with fracture neck of femur and reducing mortality. It did not due to a shortage of capacity in the Trust. The Inquest heard that the Trust was regularly not able to operate in timescales compliant with the NICE guidance. ”

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 provide NICE-compliant orthogeriatric care on admission

Wider context from the report

“1. The Inquest heard that a lengthy wait for an elderly patient with a hip fracture on a trolley in the Emergency Department will impact their physiological reserves and add to their pain. In Mr Curry’s case, the Inquest heard that the prolonged wait was due to a shortage of beds within the Trust. That situation is still the case; 2. Mr Curry needed an orthopaedic bed to enable him to have the operation. The evidence was that a shortage of beds meant that he could not be placed in one and had to go to AMU. As a consequence on admission he did not receive the orthogeriatric care envisaged by NICE in their guidance; 3. The Inquest heard that the operation should have taken place earlier than it did under the NICE guidance. The Inquest was told that the NICE guidance is based on ensuring the best outcomes for elderly patients with fracture neck of femur and reducing mortality. It did not due to a shortage of capacity in the Trust. The Inquest heard that the Trust was regularly not able to operate in timescales compliant with the NICE guidance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient orthogeriatric provision for elderly orthopaedic trauma patients.

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 provide hip fracture surgery within NICE-compliant timescales

Wider context from the report

“1. The Inquest heard that a lengthy wait for an elderly patient with a hip fracture on a trolley in the Emergency Department will impact their physiological reserves and add to their pain. In Mr Curry’s case, the Inquest heard that the prolonged wait was due to a shortage of beds within the Trust. That situation is still the case; 2. Mr Curry needed an orthopaedic bed to enable him to have the operation. The evidence was that a shortage of beds meant that he could not be placed in one and had to go to AMU. As a consequence on admission he did not receive the orthogeriatric care envisaged by NICE in their guidance; 3. The Inquest heard that the operation should have taken place earlier than it did under the NICE guidance. The Inquest was told that the NICE guidance is based on ensuring the best outcomes for elderly patients with fracture neck of femur and reducing mortality. It did not due to a shortage of capacity in the Trust. The Inquest heard that the Trust was regularly not able to operate in timescales compliant with the NICE guidance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in progressing time-critical surgical treatment.

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 provide timely bed access for elderly patients with hip fracture

Wider context from the report

“1. The Inquest heard that a lengthy wait for an elderly patient with a hip fracture on a trolley in the Emergency Department will impact their physiological reserves and add to their pain. In Mr Curry’s case, the Inquest heard that the prolonged wait was due to a shortage of beds within the Trust. That situation is still the case; 2. Mr Curry needed an orthopaedic bed to enable him to have the operation. The evidence was that a shortage of beds meant that he could not be placed in one and had to go to AMU. As a consequence on admission he did not receive the orthogeriatric care envisaged by NICE in their guidance; 3. The Inquest heard that the operation should have taken place earlier than it did under the NICE guidance. The Inquest was told that the NICE guidance is based on ensuring the best outcomes for elderly patients with fracture neck of femur and reducing mortality. It did not due to a shortage of capacity in the Trust. The Inquest heard that the Trust was regularly not able to operate in timescales compliant with the NICE guidance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure timely transfer to an appropriate hospital care environment; Failure to maintain safe hospital patient flow.

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

Report surgery delays exceeding 36 hours, complete root cause analyses, and review findings weekly for learning and approved actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where the Trust are not able to meet the 36 hour timeframe for surgery for patient with a fracture neck of femur a clinical incident report is submitted. Following the incident a root cause analysis is completed by the Trauma Coordinators to identify reasons for the delay and opportunities for learning. The root cause analysis investigations are then reviewed weekly in the “NOF Review Meeting” for comment, action and approval. This meeting is attended by the Clinical Lead for Neck of Femur, the Matron for Trauma and Orthopaedics and the Directorate Manager.”

Source location

Response from Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2022

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

Monitor compliance with NICE hip-fracture guidance and submit daily data to the National Hip Fracture Database and related audit programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For assurance of performance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical guidance the Surgery, Women’s and Children’s Division are monitoring compliance on an ongoing basis. The Trust submits data to the National Hip Fracture Database, which specifically looks at care for patients over the age of 60, who undergo surgery following a hip fracture. This includes data to improve care through quality improvement in line with NICE guidelines and the National Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme (FFFAP). Data is submitted by the trauma co-ordinators daily. The Trust have implemented a Divisional fractured neck of femur improvement programme which is reported and monitored daily via the Divisional senior leadership team.”

Source location

Response from Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2022

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

Operate a divisional fractured-neck-of-femur improvement programme with daily senior-leadership reporting and monitoring.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For assurance of performance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical guidance the Surgery, Women’s and Children’s Division are monitoring compliance on an ongoing basis. The Trust submits data to the National Hip Fracture Database, which specifically looks at care for patients over the age of 60, who undergo surgery following a hip fracture. This includes data to improve care through quality improvement in line with NICE guidelines and the National Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme (FFFAP). Data is submitted by the trauma co-ordinators daily. The Trust have implemented a Divisional fractured neck of femur improvement programme which is reported and monitored daily via the Divisional senior leadership team.”

Source location

Response from Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2022

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.5

  1. 1

    Monitor divisional compliance with the hip-fracture pathway through the Service Quality and Governance Group.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 September 2022.
  2. 2

    Coordinate orthopaedic and anaesthetic planning through daily trauma meetings, including tracking diagnostic tests for pre-operative optimisation.

    Stated by Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 September 2022.
  3. 3

    Present and share learning from the case with the Greater Manchester System Quality Group.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2022.
  4. 4

    Monitor key learning points and recommendations to ensure they become embedded in practice.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2022.
  5. 5

    Cascade shared learning from this and similar cases to professionals through relevant Greater Manchester and borough governance and learning forums.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2022.

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

Monitor divisional compliance with the hip-fracture pathway through the Service Quality and Governance Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Oversight of Divisional compliance with this pathway is also monitored via the Service Quality and Governance Group, which is chaired by the Executive Director of Nursing and Integrated Governance.”

Source location

Response from Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2022

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

Coordinate orthopaedic and anaesthetic planning through daily trauma meetings, including tracking diagnostic tests for pre-operative optimisation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For those patients are not deemed fit for surgery, the trauma coordination team supports the orthopaedic and anaesthetic clinicians to determine the clinical plan. This plan is discussed at the daily trauma planning meeting. For patients who may require diagnostic tests as part of their pre operative optimisation then daily tracking of these is also included within the daily planning meeting.”

Source location

Response from Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2022

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

Present and share learning from the case with the Greater Manchester System Quality Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Actions taken or being taken to share learning across Greater Manchester.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2022

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

Monitor key learning points and recommendations to ensure they become embedded in practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Shared learning from this and similar cases at Greater Manchester and borough level will be cascaded to professionals through relevant governance and learning forums. In conclusion, key learning points and recommendations will be monitored to ensure they are embedded within practice. NHS GM is committed to improving outcomes for the population of Greater Manchester.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2022

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

Cascade shared learning from this and similar cases to professionals through relevant Greater Manchester and borough governance and learning forums.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Shared learning from this and similar cases at Greater Manchester and borough level will be cascaded to professionals through relevant governance and learning forums. In conclusion, key learning points and recommendations will be monitored to ensure they are embedded within practice. NHS GM is committed to improving outcomes for the population of Greater Manchester.”

Source location

Response from NHS Greater Manchester
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2022

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