PFD report

Amanda Coulthard · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Jan 2017•Cumbria

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
12

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 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 raised12

  1. Lack of corporate memory for nasogastric tube safety risks
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain safety risks in corporate risk governance
  2. Failure of staff to apply the nasogastric tube policy
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes
  3. Failure of staff to follow good practice for nasogastric tube use
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes
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

Lack of corporate memory for nasogastric tube safety risks

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain safety risks in corporate risk governance.

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 staff to apply the nasogastric tube policy

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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 staff to follow good practice for nasogastric tube use

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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 learn from a prior nasogastric tube death

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learning; Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review.

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 staff to read the nasogastric tube policy

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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 staff awareness of the nasogastric tube policy

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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 maintain accurate cross-references in the nasogastric tube policy

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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

Nasogastric tube policy becoming difficult for practitioners to absorb

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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 fully implement the 2011 NPSA Alert on nasogastric tubes

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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 ward-level systems to ensure compliance with the nasogastric tube policy

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of Ryles and nasogastric tubes.

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 checks and audits of staff competence and policy adherence

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

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 nasogastric tube policy training to all required staff

Wider context from the report

“I have now held inquests into 3 deaths as a result of misplaced nasogastric tubes at North Cumbria Hospitals which occurred over a period of a little over 7 years. These types of death are described as ‘Never Events’. On the facts of these three cases the deaths are avoidable. Common themes in all were: (a) Staff not being aware of the policy. (b) Staff not reading the policy. (c) Staff not applying the policy. (d) Staff not following good practice. (e) The Trust not ensuring compliance nor rolling out training to all who needed it. (f) Lack of checks and audits to establish competence and adherence to policy. (g) Failure of the Trust to learn from the first death. (h) Lack of Corporate Memory (the issue of NGTs was not on the Risk Register). (i) The Trust not fully implementing the 2011 NPSA Alert for over two years and only as a result of the second death. (j) Even after the second death not having systems in place to ensure compliance on the ward which contributed to the third death. (k) The Trust Policy growing in size from 20 to 36 pages in 7 years, making it difficult for busy practitioners to absorb (there are some 200 Policies in the Trust). (l) The current Policy has cross-references to paragraphs which do not exist. These errors have been carried through three versions, and raise the risk of misinterpretation by staff and undermining their confidence in such an important document. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026