PFD report

Brigitte Dominique FAVRE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Dec 2025•Suffolk

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 raised3

  1. Failure of emergency department records management to enable timely and consistent interrogation of patient records
  2. Failure to ensure that oncology discharge criteria are known and followed
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  3. Unavailability of on-call oncology support for cancer patient discharge planning during weekends and out of hours
    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.1

  1. Action

    Share targeted communication with ward teams reinforcing oncology advice and safe discharge requirements for complex out-of-hours and weekend discharges.

    Stated by SNEE ICB and West Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 December 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    ED clinicians could access and reviewed prior records, including information about recent chemotherapy.

    Stated by SNEE ICB and West Suffolk 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 of emergency department records management to enable timely and consistent interrogation of patient records

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence that at the time of Ms. FAVRE’s discharge on the 25th January 2025, no oncology input was available on weekends or out of hours to inform discharge decision making. Criteria had been set by the treating Consultant Oncologist, however the evidence received at Inquest suggested that this was neither known nor followed in relation to Ms. FAVRE’s discharge. I found as a fact that the discharge of Ms FAVRE on the 25th January 2025 was a failed discharge although it was not possible to establish whether the failed discharge made a contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death. Upon readmission to West Suffolk Hospital on 26th January 2025, poor records management meant that the emergency department staff at West Suffolk Hospital did not identify that Ms. FAVRE had recently received chemotherapy treatment and as a result chemotherapy support medication was not administered. Although this made no contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death, I am concerned that in the case of other patients such a failure may have a different adverse outcome. I therefore have two concerns: 1. The provision of on-call oncology support over weekends and out of hours to inform discharge planning and assist in reducing the incidence of failed discharge amongst cancer patients. 2. The record management in the emergency department, including the ability of emergency department staff to interrogate West Suffolk Hospital records in a timely and consistent manner in order to inform clinical decision making concerning patients who have either recently been discharged or are receiving ongoing outpatient care. ”

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 that oncology discharge criteria are known and followed

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence that at the time of Ms. FAVRE’s discharge on the 25th January 2025, no oncology input was available on weekends or out of hours to inform discharge decision making. Criteria had been set by the treating Consultant Oncologist, however the evidence received at Inquest suggested that this was neither known nor followed in relation to Ms. FAVRE’s discharge. I found as a fact that the discharge of Ms FAVRE on the 25th January 2025 was a failed discharge although it was not possible to establish whether the failed discharge made a contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death. Upon readmission to West Suffolk Hospital on 26th January 2025, poor records management meant that the emergency department staff at West Suffolk Hospital did not identify that Ms. FAVRE had recently received chemotherapy treatment and as a result chemotherapy support medication was not administered. Although this made no contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death, I am concerned that in the case of other patients such a failure may have a different adverse outcome. I therefore have two concerns: 1. The provision of on-call oncology support over weekends and out of hours to inform discharge planning and assist in reducing the incidence of failed discharge amongst cancer patients. 2. The record management in the emergency department, including the ability of emergency department staff to interrogate West Suffolk Hospital records in a timely and consistent manner in order to inform clinical decision making concerning patients who have either recently been discharged or are receiving ongoing outpatient care. ”

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

Unavailability of on-call oncology support for cancer patient discharge planning during weekends and out of hours

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence that at the time of Ms. FAVRE’s discharge on the 25th January 2025, no oncology input was available on weekends or out of hours to inform discharge decision making. Criteria had been set by the treating Consultant Oncologist, however the evidence received at Inquest suggested that this was neither known nor followed in relation to Ms. FAVRE’s discharge. I found as a fact that the discharge of Ms FAVRE on the 25th January 2025 was a failed discharge although it was not possible to establish whether the failed discharge made a contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death. Upon readmission to West Suffolk Hospital on 26th January 2025, poor records management meant that the emergency department staff at West Suffolk Hospital did not identify that Ms. FAVRE had recently received chemotherapy treatment and as a result chemotherapy support medication was not administered. Although this made no contribution to Ms. FAVRE’s death, I am concerned that in the case of other patients such a failure may have a different adverse outcome. I therefore have two concerns: 1. The provision of on-call oncology support over weekends and out of hours to inform discharge planning and assist in reducing the incidence of failed discharge amongst cancer patients. 2. The record management in the emergency department, including the ability of emergency department staff to interrogate West Suffolk Hospital records in a timely and consistent manner in order to inform clinical decision making concerning patients who have either recently been discharged or are receiving ongoing outpatient care. ”

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

Share targeted communication with ward teams reinforcing oncology advice and safe discharge requirements for complex out-of-hours and weekend discharges.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Despite the system being in place for many years, it is clear WSFT need to raise awareness of the process when dealing with complex discharges and seeking out of hours specialist advice. Therefore, the following action is being taken: -”

Source location

Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
Page 2 · response
Published 23 December 2025

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

ED clinicians could access and reviewed prior records, including information about recent chemotherapy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The discharge letter was also available on the system and makes reference to Mrs Favre’s recent chemotherapy.”

Source location

Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
Page 2 · response
Published 23 December 2025

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

A formal out-of-hours consultant oncology service cannot be provided because additional consultant capacity and resources are unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Clarification of Out-of-Hours Oncology Support The Trust would like to clarify that an out-of-hours oncology telephone advice service is available via a Service Level Agreement with Cambridge University Hospitals (CUH). This has been in existence for over 20 years and provides consultant-level oncology advice. The service is accessed through the Trust’s switchboard. The senior clinician requests to be connected to the doctor on-call for Oncology and the switchboard then make contact with CUH. WSFT is not able to offer a formal out of hours Consultant oncology service, as that would mean increasing the consultant body and resources are not available to achieve this. However, in addition to the formal arrangements, informally all WSFT Oncology consultants are happy to be contacted at any time should advice be required.”

Source location

Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
Page 1 · response
Published 23 December 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.5

  1. 1

    Use newly implemented digital solutions to support completion of discharge letters.

    Stated by SNEE ICB and West Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 December 2025.
  2. 2

    Continue relaying learning about post-chemotherapy patients to future generations of doctors.

    Stated by SNEE ICB and West Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 December 2025.
  3. 3

    Change ward and board-round processes to support timely completion of discharge documentation.

    Stated by SNEE ICB and West Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 December 2025.
  4. 4

    Review and monitor responses and improvements taken following Regulation 28 reports, including the actions identified in this response.

    Stated by SNEE ICB and West Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 December 2025.
  5. 5

    Continue monitoring records, incidents, complaints and audit data to identify learning and inform improvement priorities.

    Stated by SNEE ICB and West Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 December 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

Use newly implemented digital solutions to support completion of discharge letters.

Verbatim wording from the response

“▪ Whilst not directly related, one of the Associate Medical Directors is leading a project to improve the completion of transfer of care summary letters (discharge letters). This work will help improve the discharge process and a side effect is that it should help to reduce failed discharges. This project specifically has implemented new digital solutions to make completion of discharge letters easier, as well as starting to change the way ward and board rounds work to help timely completion of documentation associated with discharge. This will be monitored through the governance processes.”

Source location

Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
Page 2 · response
Published 23 December 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

Continue relaying learning about post-chemotherapy patients to future generations of doctors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to the specific concern about the ED teams’ ability to access the wider hospital’s medical records, the ED team confirm:”

Source location

Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
Page 3 · response
Published 23 December 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

Change ward and board-round processes to support timely completion of discharge documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“▪ Whilst not directly related, one of the Associate Medical Directors is leading a project to improve the completion of transfer of care summary letters (discharge letters). This work will help improve the discharge process and a side effect is that it should help to reduce failed discharges. This project specifically has implemented new digital solutions to make completion of discharge letters easier, as well as starting to change the way ward and board rounds work to help timely completion of documentation associated with discharge. This will be monitored through the governance processes.”

Source location

Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
Page 2 · response
Published 23 December 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

Review and monitor responses and improvements taken following Regulation 28 reports, including the actions identified in this response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ICB has responsibility to review and monitor all responses and improvements taken following Regulation 28 reports in respect of the services we commission. This will include the actions taken for improvement as identified in this response.”

Source location

Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 23 December 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

Continue monitoring records, incidents, complaints and audit data to identify learning and inform improvement priorities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Through our existing governance processes WSFT will continue to monitor this issue. We do this by triangulating data from various sources such as: incidents, complaints, and audit data. We use that to feed into future improvement work and priorities for the future. The team will remain vigilant for learning opportunities around this and similar issues as part of our continuous journey of improvement.”

Source location

Response from West Suffolk Hospital and Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care Board
Page 3 · response
Published 23 December 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026