PFD report

Laura Lesley FARMER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Sep 2024•Inner North London

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
5

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 raised5

  1. Failure to provide household infection-control safety advice after E coli diagnosis
  2. Failure to provide treating clinicians with public health investigation feedback and infection-control information
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services
  3. Failure to obtain relevant exposure information from household contacts during E coli source investigation
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable investigation of serious infection causes
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

    Share UKHSA regional team contact details with immediate family so they can ask questions or provide further information.

    Stated by UK Health Security AgencyStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 September 2024.
  2. Action

    Undertake collaborative risk assessments with treating clinical teams when a case dies during investigation to determine whether further next-of-kin contact is needed.

    Stated by UK Health Security AgencyStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 September 2024.
  3. Action

    Reflect on the case and reinforce how relevant infection information is made available to patients and next of kin.

    Stated by UCLH TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 September 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    No household testing or further public health action was needed because transmission risk was low and national guidance applied.

    Stated by UK Health Security AgencyExisting 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 provide household infection-control safety advice after E coli diagnosis

Wider context from the report

“3. After his wife’s diagnosis, Mr Farmer was given no advice about how to keep himself and their child safe. He cleaned the bathroom in anticipation of his wife’s return home, but did not use any personal protective equipment. When he later became unwell, he did not know whether he had put himself at risk. Having heard his description in court, I think it is not an exaggeration to say that he was then terrified that his own actions might leave his child an orphan. ”

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 treating clinicians with public health investigation feedback and infection-control information

Wider context from the report

“4. The clinicians treating Ms Farmer gave evidence at inquest that they did not know if the source of the infection that killed her had ever been identified. Mr Farmer saw in the news that there was a local E coli outbreak in Waverley, Surrey. The clinicians at UCLH knew which strain of E coli had infected Ms Farmer, but not whether that strain had been discovered in Waverley or indeed elsewhere, because after reporting to the UKHSA they received no feedback, no advice on infection control and no information they could give Mr Farmer. After a death from E coli, there seems to have been no closing of the loop of safety information that could have assisted those most closely involved. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services.

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 obtain relevant exposure information from household contacts during E coli source investigation

Wider context from the report

“2. The UKHSA did not at any stage ask ████████ for information to assist in attempting to determine the source of the E coli infection that ultimately killed his wife. If asked, Mr Farmer would have explained that on 6 April 2024, not only did he and his wife visit a local restaurant, they also had drinks at a nearby club, and they had recently eaten and drunk at local military establishments. None of that information appears to have been considered by the UKHSA. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable investigation of serious infection causes.

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 obtain a sufficiently complete exposure history during E coli source investigation

Wider context from the report

“1. Someone from what was described to me as public health (I assume the UKHSA) spoke to Laura Farmer the day before her death, asking for information. However, she was in intensive care at the time and not able to give a full, detailed picture. There was apparently no exploration of potential contact with animals or water sports and I was told that only scant details of a recent restaurant visit were obtained. ”

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 of public health authorities to provide an accessible route to meaningful information for bereaved relatives

Wider context from the report

“5. Mr Farmer explained to me that he had spent some considerable time and effort since his wife’s death trying to obtain basic information from the public health authorities without success. He struck me as a person of significant drive, and yet he found it incredibly difficult to find the correct person to speak to and then incredibly difficult to gain any meaningful understanding of what had happened. This cannot inspire public confidence and seems a very offhand way to treat a grieving relative. I did not call anyone from the UKHSA to give evidence at inquest, because I had expected that UKHSA would have shared relevant information with both clinicians and family. It may be, therefore, that there are explanations for what seem to be surprising actions and inactions. If that is the case, then of course you will be able to explain as much in your response. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Share UKHSA regional team contact details with immediate family so they can ask questions or provide further information.

Verbatim wording from the response

“41. The review identified one learning point in relation to dealing with unwell cases, namely that where a case is known to die during investigation a risk assessment should be undertaken in collaboration with the clinical team treating the case to determine whether additional contact should be made with the next of kin. Any consideration of the need for a grieving family for privacy should be weighed against the potential need for information. The contact details of the UKHSA regional team will be shared with immediate family so they can contact the regional team if they have any questions or would like to provide any further information.”

Source location

Response from UK Health Security Agency
Page 8 · response
Published 17 September 2024

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

Undertake collaborative risk assessments with treating clinical teams when a case dies during investigation to determine whether further next-of-kin contact is needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“41. The review identified one learning point in relation to dealing with unwell cases, namely that where a case is known to die during investigation a risk assessment should be undertaken in collaboration with the clinical team treating the case to determine whether additional contact should be made with the next of kin. Any consideration of the need for a grieving family for privacy should be weighed against the potential need for information. The contact details of the UKHSA regional team will be shared with immediate family so they can contact the regional team if they have any questions or would like to provide any further information.”

Source location

Response from UK Health Security Agency
Page 8 · response
Published 17 September 2024

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

Reflect on the case and reinforce how relevant infection information is made available to patients and next of kin.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will reflect on this case and reinforce how we make relevant infection information available to patients and their next of kin, having clarified from UKHSA colleagues that the appropriate link to relevant patient information leaflets is on pages 59-66 of this document: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63b84426d3bf7f26359c13b2/health-guidance-shiga-toxin-producing-escherichia-coli.pdf”

Source location

Response from UCLH
Page 1 · response
Published 17 September 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

No household testing or further public health action was needed because transmission risk was low and national guidance applied.

Verbatim wording from the response

“19. Mrs Farmer reported that all household contacts were well at the time of interview. No close contacts were in risk groups for gastrointestinal (GI) infection. It was noted that no person in the household was aged five or under and no person in the household was reported as unable to perform personal hygiene. Risk of transmission in the household was considered low and no testing or further public health actions were recommended for the household as per national guidance.”

Source location

Response from UK Health Security Agency
Page 4 · response
Published 17 September 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

No further contact with next of kin was made because public health actions were complete and ongoing household transmission risk was extremely low.

Verbatim wording from the response

“24. The UKHSA staff member who made the follow-up call sought advice from senior colleagues at this time and it was agreed that no further contact should be made. UKHSA South East considered that the next of kin was grieving and that unnecessary contact could be considered intrusive at that time. UKHSA South East made the judgement not to speak to the next of kin on the basis that all public health actions had been completed, risk of ongoing transmission in the household was extremely low, both household contacts were well at the time of the interview, and that a significant time had elapsed since the onset of illness in Mrs Farmer.”

Source location

Response from UK Health Security Agency
Page 5 · response
Published 17 September 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 expectation that UKHSA should disseminate information to clinicians and family was unfair because it did not reflect UKHSA policies or procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“34. We acknowledge the Senior Coroner’s expectation that UKHSA share relevant information with both clinicians and the family. However, without information about our role or any UKHSA representation at the inquest, we believe this expectation has led to an unfair observation. Paragraph 25 of The Chief Coroner’s Guidance Note No.5 states that a Coroner, when reporting, should “…base their report on clear evidence at the inquest or on clear information during the investigation, to express clearly and simply what that information or evidence is, and to ensure that a bereaved family’s expectations are not raised unrealistically.” The lack of UKHSA evidence and representation at the inquest, in our view, would cause difficulty in expressing clearly and simply when, how and who information should have been disseminated to.”

Source location

Response from UK Health Security Agency
Page 7 · response
Published 17 September 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

Community outbreak investigations do not fall directly within the Trust’s infection prevention and control teams’ scope of practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The UCLH Trust response has been led by the Division of Infection, in recognition that the concerns raised by the coroner were principally about communication about the STEC outbreak investigation between UKHSA and the patient and family, a topic for which our Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) teams form the Trust’s local expertise and point of contact, although a community outbreak investigation does not fall directly within their scope of practice.”

Source location

Response from UCLH
Page 1 · response
Published 17 September 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-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

    Undertake regular reviews of practice to identify learning supporting quality improvement.

    Stated by UK Health Security AgencyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 September 2024.
  2. 2

    Complete an informal peer review of actions taken in this case.

    Stated by UK Health Security AgencyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 September 2024.

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

  1. 1

    Investigating an individual’s death is outside UKHSA’s remit, which concerns investigating public health outbreaks and hazards.

    Stated by UK Health Security AgencyOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Undertake regular reviews of practice to identify learning supporting quality improvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“35. UKHSA is a learning organisation and commits to undertaking regular reviews of practice and ensuring learning is identified to support quality improvement.”

Source location

Response from UK Health Security Agency
Page 7 · response
Published 17 September 2024

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

Complete an informal peer review of actions taken in this case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“36. UKHSA South East undertook an informal peer review of actions taken. The review concluded that all public health action had been completed for this case in line with the national guidance and standard practice and that the team had acted compassionately in their interactions with Mrs Farmer and subsequently with the next of kin.”

Source location

Response from UK Health Security Agency
Page 7 · response
Published 17 September 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

Investigating an individual’s death is outside UKHSA’s remit, which concerns investigating public health outbreaks and hazards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. UKHSA’s primary objective in outbreak management is to protect public health: by identifying the source and cause of infection and transmission dynamics, and by implementing control measures to prevent further spread or recurrence. It is not within UKHSA’s remit to investigate the death of an individual. The roles of UKHSA and key external stakeholders in outbreak management, including the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), local government and NHS England are complementary. In practice these organisations work closely as part of a single public health system to deliver effective protection for the population from health threats.”

Source location

Response from UK Health Security Agency
Page 2 · response
Published 17 September 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026