PFD report

Charles Henry DANIELS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Sep 2024•Cheshire

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
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 establish whether care at home could be safely provided
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure safe post-discharge arrangements for vulnerable patients and residentsPart of recurring concern: Untimely or incomplete community care assessments
  2. Failure to alert a doctor to significant deterioration before discharge home
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deteriorationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  3. Failure to record fluctuations in presentation relevant to diagnosis and pre-discharge review
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Existing policy-based escalation was considered sufficient because observations did not warrant medical review before discharge.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation 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 establish whether care at home could be safely provided

Wider context from the report

“3) He arrived home by ambulance to his family in physically poor condition and clearly very unwell, on a stretcher in a hospital gown and incontinent, causing considerable distress to the family, particularly after a nurse, the paramedics and his carer questioned how they would cope with his care at home. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure safe post-discharge arrangements for vulnerable patients and residents; Untimely or incomplete community care assessments.

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 alert a doctor to significant deterioration before discharge home

Wider context from the report

“2) Neither the discharging nurse nor North West Ambulance Service personnel attending Stepping Hill on 6 March 2024, for the purposes of his discharge home, appear to have alerted a doctor to the significant deterioration in Mr Daniel’s condition since last assessed by a doctor on 4 March. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deterioration; 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 record fluctuations in presentation relevant to diagnosis and pre-discharge review

Wider context from the report

“1) Record keeping by the nursing team at Stepping Hill Hospital did not record the fluctuations in presentation relevant to the diagnosis of intracranial hypotension or to enable or confirm a review of his condition prior to discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

Open source report

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

Existing policy-based escalation was considered sufficient because observations did not warrant medical review before discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ has further reviewed the record and has confirmed that Mr Daniels’ vital observations did not warrant any escalation to the medical team at any point from 4 March”

Source location

Response from Stepping Hill Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 31 October 2024

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 Trust disputes that significant deterioration was identified on discharge, citing a NEWS of zero throughout the admission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the day of discharge, the Ward Sister recalls that Mr Daniels required the assistance of three to transfer but due to his variable requirements for assistance with mobility, this did not appear unduly out of character.”

Source location

Response from Stepping Hill Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 31 October 2024

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

  1. 1

    MOAT patients considered stable do not require daily medical review; weekday board rounds and requested senior reviews provide sufficient oversight.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. 2

    The Trust disputes that continence aids were required for transport, relying on records that the patient was continent and clean and dry before discharge.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  3. 3

    The existing ‘Dressed is best’ campaign and monthly compliance audits were considered sufficient to support appropriate patient clothing.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

MOAT patients considered stable do not require daily medical review; weekday board rounds and requested senior reviews provide sufficient oversight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ would like to confirm that a patient who is deemed medically optimised awaiting transfer (MOAT) and is stable does not require daily medical review, and certainly not by a consultant. By definition if MOAT a patient is deemed to have no requirement to be in an acute hospital bed and the only reason they remain admitted is due to a delay in being able to move them to a more appropriate location e.g. their own home or a care home. Wards at Stockport NHS Foundation Trust have white board rounds Monday to Friday where any change in condition for a patient would be escalated and discussed and would lead to a senior review if required. This provides senior oversight for all patients. Likewise a senior review can be requested out of hours if necessary.”

Source location

Response from Stepping Hill Hospital
Page 2 · response
Published 31 October 2024

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 Trust disputes that continence aids were required for transport, relying on records that the patient was continent and clean and dry before discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ has also reviewed Mr Daniel’s medical record in relation to continence. Nursing staff have documented that Mr Daniels was continent and was using urine bottles whilst in hospital and so no continence aids were deemed necessary for transportation purposes. ████████ confirms that Mr Daniel’s was clean and dry prior to discharge home and the team are unable to explain why this occurred following discharge.”

Source location

Response from Stepping Hill Hospital
Page 3 · response
Published 31 October 2024

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 existing ‘Dressed is best’ campaign and monthly compliance audits were considered sufficient to support appropriate patient clothing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ would like to apologise that Mr Daniels was sent home in his hospital gown and not in his own clothing, as this is something which the ward always encourages. The ‘Dressed is best’ campaign is encouraged across the Trust and compliance is monitored through monthly audits and reported via the Lead Nurse’s report at the Divisional Quality Group. ████████ would like to apologise for the poorly condition in which Mr Daniels’ family describe he arrived back home in. She is confident that had his condition appeared as described prior to discharge, then the discharge process would have been delayed and she would have ensured that Mr Daniels had a medical review.”

Source location

Response from Stepping Hill Hospital
Page 3 · response
Published 31 October 2024

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