PFD report

June Thompson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Apr 2025•Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

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 raised4

  1. Lack of policy, guidance or standard operating procedure for processing medical reports received from other hospitals
  2. Failure to report errors through the OUH Incident Reporting process
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents
  3. Decisions to proceed with major operations without the surgical team having full knowledge of disease progression
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.8

  1. Action

    Feed back to the Sarcoma team the importance of reporting all patient safety incidents, including no-harm incidents.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 April 2025.
  2. Action

    Report and investigate the incident under the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 April 2025.
  3. Action

    Distribute the revised pelvic surgery SOP to surgical consultants and share it with Surgery Clinical Leads.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 April 2025.

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 policy, guidance or standard operating procedure for processing medical reports received from other hospitals

Wider context from the report

“• There is no policy, guidance or standard operating procedure regarding how to process medical reports being received at OUH from other hospitals. ”

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 report errors through the OUH Incident Reporting process

Wider context from the report

“• The error has not been reported through the OUH Incident Reporting process. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents.

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

Decisions to proceed with major operations without the surgical team having full knowledge of disease progression

Wider context from the report

“• There is a risk of future deaths from decisions to proceed with major operations without the surgical team having full knowledge of disease progression, this could include operations that may be unnecessary. ”

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 investigate errors to establish why they happened and prevent recurrence

Wider context from the report

“• The error has not been investigated to establish why it happened and how to prevent a reoccurrence. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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

Feed back to the Sarcoma team the importance of reporting all patient safety incidents, including no-harm incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledge that the incident was not reported in our incident reporting system until after the inquest. The Sarcoma service has an open and transparent reporting culture as evidenced by 37 incidents that have been reported in the last 2 years with 26 of these being of ‘no harm’. We have fed back to the team the importance of reporting any patient safety incidents and will send a Trust wide Safety Message emphasising the importance of reporting all safety incidents including ‘no harm’ (previously known as ‘near misses’) to ensure learning to prevent future harm.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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

Report and investigate the incident under the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The incident has now been reported and investigated in line with the Trust’s implementation of the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework. The learning from the inquest and this investigation has been highlighted at the Trust-wide Safety Learning and Improvement Conversation and circulated to all clinical teams. It will also be presented at the next Sarcoma Surgery Clinical Governance meeting, Trust Clinical Governance Committee and the OUH Mortality Review Group over the next 2 months.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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

Distribute the revised pelvic surgery SOP to surgical consultants and share it with Surgery Clinical Leads.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, a separate SOP for the Oxford Radical Pelvic Surgical team has been revised to include a prompt to check for test result reports from external NHS Trusts before proceeding to treatment. If test results are requested within OUH then the Electronic Patient Record already automatically notifies the test requestor and the named consultant of the result. The updated SOP has been distributed to all pelvic surgical consultants and will be shared with Clinical Leads for Surgery for learning across the Trust. I attach a copy of this clinical SOP.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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

Revise the Oxford Radical Pelvic Surgical team SOP to require checking external NHS test-result reports before treatment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, a separate SOP for the Oxford Radical Pelvic Surgical team has been revised to include a prompt to check for test result reports from external NHS Trusts before proceeding to treatment. If test results are requested within OUH then the Electronic Patient Record already automatically notifies the test requestor and the named consultant of the result. The updated SOP has been distributed to all pelvic surgical consultants and will be shared with Clinical Leads for Surgery for learning across the Trust. I attach a copy of this clinical SOP.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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

Circulate a Trust-wide patient safety message requiring staff to review radiology reports before surgery.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The learning from this inquest and the subsequent investigation (see below) was highlighted at the Trust wide Safety Learning and Improvement Conversation on 17 April 2025 and the key learning of communicating test and scan results performed outside OUH to the named consultant was included in the summary slide from this meeting which was circulated to all clinical teams. A Trust wide Patient Safety Message email highlighting the importance of reviewing all radiology reports prior to surgery has been drafted and will be circulated to all OUH staff in the next 4 weeks.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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

Circulate the learning that external test and scan results must be communicated to named consultants to all clinical teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The learning from this inquest and the subsequent investigation (see below) was highlighted at the Trust wide Safety Learning and Improvement Conversation on 17 April 2025 and the key learning of communicating test and scan results performed outside OUH to the named consultant was included in the summary slide from this meeting which was circulated to all clinical teams. A Trust wide Patient Safety Message email highlighting the importance of reviewing all radiology reports prior to surgery has been drafted and will be circulated to all OUH staff in the next 4 weeks.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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 a Trust-wide safety message emphasising reporting all patient safety incidents, including no-harm incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledge that the incident was not reported in our incident reporting system until after the inquest. The Sarcoma service has an open and transparent reporting culture as evidenced by 37 incidents that have been reported in the last 2 years with 26 of these being of ‘no harm’. We have fed back to the team the importance of reporting any patient safety incidents and will send a Trust wide Safety Message emphasising the importance of reporting all safety incidents including ‘no harm’ (previously known as ‘near misses’) to ensure learning to prevent future harm.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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

Roll out the new SOP for managing clinical information received from other departments, NHS trusts and organisations across the Trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To address this risk across the Trust, a new Standard Operating Protocol (SOP) has been developed for Management of Patient Related Clinical Information received from another Department / Trust / Organisations. I attach a copy of this SOP which has already been implemented in the gynaecology and sarcoma services and is being rolled out across the Trust.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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

    Present the investigation and inquest learning at Sarcoma Surgery Clinical Governance, the Trust Clinical Governance Committee and the Mortality Review Group.

    Stated by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 April 2025.

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

Present the investigation and inquest learning at Sarcoma Surgery Clinical Governance, the Trust Clinical Governance Committee and the Mortality Review Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The incident has now been reported and investigated in line with the Trust’s implementation of the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework. The learning from the inquest and this investigation has been highlighted at the Trust-wide Safety Learning and Improvement Conversation and circulated to all clinical teams. It will also be presented at the next Sarcoma Surgery Clinical Governance meeting, Trust Clinical Governance Committee and the OUH Mortality Review Group over the next 2 months.”

Source location

Response from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 11 April 2025

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