PFD report

NICOLA ANNE TWEEDY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Mar 2015•Norfolk

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
9

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 raised7

  1. Failure to complete documentation forms properly and in a timely manner
  2. Failure to complete the discharge checklist form
  3. Failure to ensure the nurse completing discharge notes has seen the patient
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
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.7

  1. Action

    Report thromboprophylaxis audit data at clinical and governance meetings.

    Stated by Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2015.
  2. Action

    Audit documentation forms to verify completion of required leaflet records.

    Stated by Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2015.
  3. Action

    Document leaflet provision using a pre-assessment tick box and required staff entries.

    Stated by Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    The discharge documentation concern was considered a misinterpretation because nursing evidence indicated the patient had been seen and relevant advice recorded.

    Stated by Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 complete documentation forms properly and in a timely manner

Wider context from the report

“Specific leaflets relating to the procedure and aftercare were not handed to the patient. It is understood a “tick box” has now been added to documentation recording that this is done. This will only work if forms are properly and timely completed – see below. It is understood training and auditing of forms is now in place, but it is not clear how this is being carried out. ”

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 complete the discharge checklist form

Wider context from the report

“The checklist form for completion on discharge was not completed. ”

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 ensure the nurse completing discharge notes has seen the patient

Wider context from the report

“There was no evidence that the Nurse completing the notes had actually seen Mrs Tweedy prior to discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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 provide procedure and aftercare leaflets to patients

Wider context from the report

“Specific leaflets relating to the procedure and aftercare were not handed to the patient. It is understood a “tick box” has now been added to documentation recording that this is done. This will only work if forms are properly and timely completed – see below. It is understood training and auditing of forms is now in place, but it is not clear how this is being carried out. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate patient information for surgical procedures.

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

Unclear implementation of training and auditing of forms

Wider context from the report

“Specific leaflets relating to the procedure and aftercare were not handed to the patient. It is understood a “tick box” has now been added to documentation recording that this is done. This will only work if forms are properly and timely completed – see below. It is understood training and auditing of forms is now in place, but it is not clear how this is being carried out. ”

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 complete thromboprophylaxis risk assessments early enough for proper risk consideration

Wider context from the report

“The Thromboprophylax Risk Assessment form was not completed at any point throughout Mrs Tweedy’s dealings with the hospital. Had the Risk Assessment been completed this would have flagged up specific risk factors relating to Mrs Tweedy well before the operation. It was noted the Risk Assessment had not been completed following Mrs Tweedy being anaesthetised and this did start discussion between the Consultant Surgeon overseeing the procedure and the Anaesthetist about the risk factors and action to be taken. However, at this stage in the procedure, it did not allow for a full and proper consideration of the relevant information early on when proper thought could have been given to the risks and potential risks. ”

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

Incomplete nursing discharge notes covering required pre-discharge checks

Wider context from the report

“Nursing notes on discharge did not fully cover all the factors required to be checked before a patient is discharged. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable hospital discharge documentation.

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 thromboprophylaxis audit data at clinical and governance meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our doctors have already started reporting their data at clinical and governance meetings. This is part of the underlying evidence for the revision of national guidance on thromboprophylaxis. The evidence on this is not at all conclusive, however, and other centres may adopt different approaches as they consider appropriate in the circumstances.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Audit documentation forms to verify completion of required leaflet records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is understood that a “tick box” has now been added to documentation recording that this will work if forms are properly and timely completed. It is understood that a full auditing of forms is now in place, and it is clear how this is being carried out.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Document leaflet provision using a pre-assessment tick box and required staff entries.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This has not however documented in the past, we have now required our staff to document that they have given standard information to each patient—in order to avoid excessive paperwork.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Review and audit implementation of the revised thromboprophylaxis practice, including bleeding complications and whether reconsideration is needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The implementation of this change in clinical practice is being reviewed at all levels. The guidance on thromboprophylaxis is not at all conclusive, however, and other centres may adopt different approaches as they consider appropriate in the circumstances.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Review the day-case discharge process outside the Day Procedure discharge pathway for consistency.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our Action Plan on this case explained that whilst this issue was covered by the existing Day Procedure (DPD) discharge checklist, the process applying to day-case patients outside the DPD was to be reviewed to ensure that this was consistent.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 4 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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 rolling out electronic prescribing to mandate required documentation and collect completion-rate data.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are continuing to roll-out our electronic prescribing system which will automatically mandate and will automatically gather data on completion rates.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Publish and maintain a VTE risk assessment tool supporting assessment and monitoring of hospital patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department is aware of the importance of reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospital patients and the need for all nurses and health care assistants to understand VTE prevention procedures, and the reasons for these procedures. This is why the Department recommends use of a risk assessment checklist and published a VTE risk assessment tool in 2010:”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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 discharge documentation concern was considered a misinterpretation because nursing evidence indicated the patient had been seen and relevant advice recorded.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We believe that this issue must be based on a misinterpretation, as the evidence of the nurse completing the notes had actually seen the patient.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 3 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Although the thromboprophylaxis assessment was undocumented, clinicians exercised professional judgment consistent with national practice and administered heparin.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This Consultant Anaesthetist and the Consultant Surgeon have confirmed that a risk assessment for Thromboembolism was not documented. The assessment was not however documented. It was agreed that the patient should be given Heparin and that the Consultant Anaesthetist would be entitled to have an assessment completed. It would have been helpful had the risk assessment form been completed, as this would have avoided subsequent discussion in this case. However in line with most of Heparin in this case was however the UK national practice in centres also represented the professional clinical judgement.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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 Day Procedure discharge checklist covered day-case discharge requirements, although the process for cases outside that pathway was reviewed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The full in-patient discharge checklist would not be expected to apply to a day-case patient; however, we wanted to ensure that patients were discussed to ensure patients adequately reflected the need to assess the patient's ability to use before discharge.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 4 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Professional regulatory bodies are responsible for investigating registrants’ alleged failures to meet standards and taking necessary safeguarding action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Lastly, as some of the actions of medical and nursing staff are subject to criticism in your report, I wish to take this opportunity to remind you of the role of the professional regulatory bodies and their fitness-to-practise processes.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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’s implemented Action Plan was considered to have addressed the reported care concerns, with learning and improvement demonstrated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note that you have sent your report to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. My officials have liaised with the Foundation Trust about your report and I understand that it has fully considered and responded to each of your concerns relating to the care of Mrs Tweedy. I can report that a recent independent external inspection found that the Foundation Trust had implemented an Action Plan, to address the issues raised by this case, and that this demonstrated that learning and improvement had taken place.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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 Department cannot become involved in or comment on individual cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“health and well-being of the public. The Department cannot get involved with or comment on individual cases.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 3 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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.2

  1. 1

    Prescribe two days of thromboprophylaxis routinely after day-case varicose vein surgery.

    Stated by Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2015.
  2. 2

    Send the coroner’s report and the Department’s response to the Care Quality Commission.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 March 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Evidence for thromboprophylaxis after day-case surgery is inconclusive, and increased prescribing may create bleeding risks for other patients.

    Stated by Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Prescribe two days of thromboprophylaxis routinely after day-case varicose vein surgery.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of our ongoing audit of over 60,000 day case patients, our surgeons have identified that varicose veins may be an independent risk factor; therefore, we have now prescribed our surgeons now routinely prescribe two days of thromboprophylaxis following day-case patients undergoing varicose vein surgery. There is concern that this may give rise to incorrect compliance, but it is important to emphasise therefore that this decision was taken on the basis of our 5-year audit data and not in response to individual Mrs Tweedy's case.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Send the coroner’s report and the Department’s response to the Care Quality Commission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I will ensure that a copy of your report and our response is sent to the Care Quality Commission.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 3 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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

Evidence for thromboprophylaxis after day-case surgery is inconclusive, and increased prescribing may create bleeding risks for other patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You will appreciate that the question of thromboprophylaxis following day case surgery is contentious and the evidence base on which to found best practice is limited. I should therefore make clear that the change in prescribing practice introduced by surgeons at our Trust was based on our ongoing audit of 60,000 day case patients over the last 5 years, rather than on the sad outcome in Mrs Tweedy's individual case. Rare complications will sometimes occur and there are genuine concerns that increased use of thromboprophylaxis will generate increased risks of bleeding for other patients. We will continue to monitor the position closely.”

Source location

2015-0095-Response-by-Norfolk-Norwich-University-Hospitals
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2015

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
2/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026