PFD report

Steven Leslie Rogers · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Jan 2016•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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised2

  1. Failure to administer prescribed long-acting insulin as scheduled
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe medication administration
  2. Failure to assess patients and ensure medical and social factors are in place before discharge
    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.2

  1. Action

    Review the medication-chart interface problem and develop an effective interim solution through the specialist Task and Finish Group.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 January 2016.
  2. Action

    Establish a specialist Task and Finish Group to oversee the interim medication-chart solution.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 January 2016.

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

  1. Position

    The consultant-led written discharge plan was followed, providing sufficient arrangements for discharge despite the discharging doctor not personally seeing the patient.

    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 administer prescribed long-acting insulin as scheduled

Wider context from the report

“2. During his stay in the hospital, the staff had erroneously omitted to administer his Levemir long acting insulin. This was then given later but this meant that his regime had been altered and he would have to re-set the regime at home. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe medication administration.

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 assess patients and ensure medical and social factors are in place before discharge

Wider context from the report

“1. The doctor who discharged the patient from the hospital as being “medically fit for discharge” did so without ever seeing the patient. In his statement to the inquest he says “I am afraid I have never seen Mr Rogers.......... he was seen by two consultant colleagues........... I was asked if he could go home by one of the nurses.....was shown the notes ..... asked the nurse to follow the team’s pre-arranged plan i.e. to discharge the patient. It is noted that Mr Rogers went home by bus”. The fact that a doctor not only discharges a patient in this way but also has no compunction in saying that he has done so in a statement to a Coroner, suggests a fundamental lack of understanding as to the importance of ensuring that all factors are in place for discharge, including medical and social issues. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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

Review the medication-chart interface problem and develop an effective interim solution through the specialist Task and Finish Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A risk assessment is already in place within the Trust regarding this issue and staff are reminded on all wards to check for any paper charts. The Trust is moving towards a Trust wide electronic patient record (EPR) which should resolve this issue, but in the meantime, I can confirm that there is a specialist “Task & Finish Group” in place to further review this issue and develop an effective interim solution. This group reports to the Trust’s Risk Management Committee and through this to the Quality Governance Committee and the Quality Assurance Committee, which reports directly to the Board of Directors.”

Source location

Steven-Rogers-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 20 January 2016

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

Establish a specialist Task and Finish Group to oversee the interim medication-chart solution.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A risk assessment is already in place within the Trust regarding this issue and staff are reminded on all wards to check for any paper charts. The Trust is moving towards a Trust wide electronic patient record (EPR) which should resolve this issue, but in the meantime, I can confirm that there is a specialist “Task & Finish Group” in place to further review this issue and develop an effective interim solution. This group reports to the Trust’s Risk Management Committee and through this to the Quality Governance Committee and the Quality Assurance Committee, which reports directly to the Board of Directors.”

Source location

Steven-Rogers-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 20 January 2016

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 consultant-led written discharge plan was followed, providing sufficient arrangements for discharge despite the discharging doctor not personally seeing the patient.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is normal practice for all patients to have a written plan by a consultant in relation to their discharge.”

Source location

Steven-Rogers-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 20 January 2016

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.1

  1. 1

    Share the investigation action plan with the coroner when it is finalised.

    Stated by Stockport NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 January 2016.

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

Share the investigation action plan with the coroner when it is finalised.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am able to confirm that the potential serious incident investigation has been concluded. The outcome of the investigation and the agreement of the validation team was that there were no serious acts of omission or commission regarding the patient’s care and as such this has not been deemed a Serious Incident. There are of course lessons that can be learnt and therefore there is an action plan associated with the report which we will share with you when it is finalised.”

Source location

Steven-Rogers-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 20 January 2016

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