PFD report

Peter CARROLL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Mar 2019•Manchester City

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
8

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 raised2

  1. Lack of leading physician sign-off for reports
  2. Delays in reporting
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.4

  1. Action

    Send pathology reports directly to the responsible clinician, including a printed copy marked “Urgent Report” when multidisciplinary discussion is delayed or unavailable.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2019.
  2. Action

    Date-stamp incoming histology paper results, track them, require consultant review and sign-off, and monitor completion monthly.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2019.
  3. Action

    Operate a fully electronic, paperless test-result reporting system at Wythenshawe with electronic acknowledgement and clinician-review tracking.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2019.

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 leading physician sign-off for reports

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that there is no leading physician signing off these reports in addition to processing by input on it systems thus reducing the effectiveness of the reporting. ”

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

Delays in reporting

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that a 6 month delay in reporting, on the evidence, meant that a curable treatment was not an option however if reported in a timely manner, would most likely have resulted in a favourable outcome. ”

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

Send pathology reports directly to the responsible clinician, including a printed copy marked “Urgent Report” when multidisciplinary discussion is delayed or unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the Department of Histopathology, measures have been instituted such that in the event of apparently unexpected or metastatic malignancy in a specimen from a site outside the pathologist’s area of expertise, that case is redirected to another pathologist who specialises in that field. All confirmed cancer cases are listed for discussion at relevant multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs). In the case of delay or inability to discuss the appropriate MDT, pathologists/pathology administrative staff have been instructed to email the report directly to the responsible clinician. In addition, a printed report marked ‘Urgent Report’ will be sent to the responsible clinician.”

Source location

2019-0162-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 2019

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

Date-stamp incoming histology paper results, track them, require consultant review and sign-off, and monitor completion monthly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Within General Surgery, as part of the actions relating to this investigation, the team undertook a review of the administration processes in relation to histopathology paper results. The provision of paper results currently provides a backup assurance system to the electronic process. It was confirmed by the Administration Manager on 27 April 2017, that as part of this review into Mr Carroll’s case, all histology paper results are now date stamped upon arrival into the department”

Source location

2019-0162-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 2019

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

Operate a fully electronic, paperless test-result reporting system at Wythenshawe with electronic acknowledgement and clinician-review tracking.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A further plan to improve communication of test results is currently being implemented at our Oxford Road site. At the Wythenshawe site of MFT, we introduced a fully electronic paperless system of reporting test results to requesting clinicians, which facilitates electronic results acknowledgement and allows tracking of clinician performance in reviewing results. We are currently introducing a similar system within the Chameleon EPR at Oxford Road site.”

Source location

2019-0162-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2019

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

Introduce an electronic test-result reporting system within the Chameleon EPR at Oxford Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A further plan to improve communication of test results is currently being implemented at our Oxford Road site. At the Wythenshawe site of MFT, we introduced a fully electronic paperless system of reporting test results to requesting clinicians, which facilitates electronic results acknowledgement and allows tracking of clinician performance in reviewing results. We are currently introducing a similar system within the Chameleon EPR at Oxford Road site.”

Source location

2019-0162-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2019

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.4

  1. 1

    Direct all confirmed cancer histology cases to the appropriate multidisciplinary team for discussion.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2019.
  2. 2

    Share the investigation summary and learning across the surgical division through the Clinical Effectiveness Group.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2019.
  3. 3

    Redirect unexpected or metastatic malignancy specimens outside a pathologist’s expertise to a specialist pathologist.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2019.
  4. 4

    Create a single electronic record source for operation notes when completing discharge notification forms.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2019.

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

Direct all confirmed cancer histology cases to the appropriate multidisciplinary team for discussion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the Department of Histopathology, measures have been instituted such that in the event of apparently unexpected or metastatic malignancy in a specimen from a site outside the pathologist’s area of expertise, that case is redirected to another pathologist who specialises in that field. All confirmed cancer cases are listed for discussion at relevant multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs). In the case of delay or inability to discuss the appropriate MDT, pathologists/pathology administrative staff have been instructed to email the report directly to the responsible clinician. In addition, a printed report marked ‘Urgent Report’ will be sent to the responsible clinician.”

Source location

2019-0162-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 2019

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

Share the investigation summary and learning across the surgical division through the Clinical Effectiveness Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A summary of the investigation and the learning was shared formally across the Division at the Surgery Clinical Effectiveness Group meeting on 20 April 2018 to ensure that all surgical teams had effective processes in place to deal with similar histopathology reports.”

Source location

2019-0162-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2019

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

Redirect unexpected or metastatic malignancy specimens outside a pathologist’s expertise to a specialist pathologist.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the Department of Histopathology, measures have been instituted such that in the event of apparently unexpected or metastatic malignancy in a specimen from a site outside the pathologist’s area of expertise, that case is redirected to another pathologist who specialises in that field. All confirmed cancer cases are listed for discussion at relevant multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs). In the case of delay or inability to discuss the appropriate MDT, pathologists/pathology administrative staff have been instructed to email the report directly to the responsible clinician. In addition, a printed report marked ‘Urgent Report’ will be sent to the responsible clinician.”

Source location

2019-0162-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 2019

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

Create a single electronic record source for operation notes when completing discharge notification forms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The investigation also found that another factor in this incident was that the Discharge Notification Form (DNF) did not report that a biopsy had been taken. Whilst Mr Carroll’s operation note was available electronically to view on the theatre ORMIS electronic record system in October 2016, at that time it was necessary for clinicians to undertake a separate log-in to access operation notes when DNFs were being completed. This process has been strengthened from April 2017. MFT Chameleon Electronic Patient Record (EPR) system improvements have facilitated the inclusion of operation notes thus creating a single electronic record source to access operation notes when DNFs are being completed hence reducing the possibility of similar omissions, due to the need to refer to multiple sources of information.”

Source location

2019-0162-Response-by-Manchester-University-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2019

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