PFD report

STUART ARRON COLLINS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Nov 2013•Teesside

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
4

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. Hand sanitiser gel stored within possible patient reach in A&E
  2. Failure to keep A&E nursing notes complete and up to date
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  3. Failure to record nursing-observation frequency on the A&E whiteboard
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient whiteboard information systems
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

    Check hand-gel dispensers regularly, keep them correctly located and maintained, and replenish them when required.

    Stated by South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 December 2013.
  2. Action

    Make staff aware of the importance of keeping the area clean and tidy and reporting environmental problems immediately.

    Stated by South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 December 2013.
  3. Action

    Return hand-gel dispensers to their correct locations throughout the department.

    Stated by South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 December 2013.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The department’s layout and distributed hand-gel dispensers meant staff did not have a significant distance to travel between cubicles.

    Stated by South Tees Hospitals 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

Hand sanitiser gel stored within possible patient reach in A&E

Wider context from the report

“5. Evidence was given that the hand sanitiser gel was collected from the A&E department. However further evidence was given that the collected hand gels (estimated at 20 in number) were placed on the nurses station very close to Mr Collins’s cubicle. There was contradictory evidence as to whether Mr Collins could have accessed the hand gel from the nurses station. ”

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 keep A&E nursing notes complete and up to date

Wider context from the report

“4. Evidence was given that the nursing notes in A&E were not fully completed and were not kept up to date. There was no apparent recording about Mr Collins’s epilepsy or the need for the hand sanitiser gel to be moved out of his reach. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 record nursing-observation frequency on the A&E whiteboard

Wider context from the report

“3. Evidence was given that Mr Collins was added to the whiteboard in the A&E dept but that the information regarding the frequency of his nursing observations was not. It was stated that this led to no nursing observations being taken during his first time at A&E on 9.10.12 ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient whiteboard information systems.

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

Uncertainty over assessment on arrival at A&E

Wider context from the report

“1. There appeared to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether Mr Collins was assessed upon his arrival at the A&E department at James Cook University Hospital ("the hospital")at approx. 00.45 or whether information previously obtained by paramedics was utilised in lieu of an assessment on arrival. ”

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 take hourly nursing observations in A&E

Wider context from the report

“2. It was stated that Mr Collins should have had hourly nursing observations taken during his first admission to A&E on 9.10.12, ie between 00.45 and his discharge at 04.30, but none were taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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

Check hand-gel dispensers regularly, keep them correctly located and maintained, and replenish them when required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. Whilst dispensers were removed in the vicinity of Mr Collins, the organisation of the department was not ideal. Following discussion with the Emergency Department, it has been agreed that all hand gel dispensers will be checked on a regular basis and replenished when required. The issue of the hand gel dispensers has also been discussed with the staff and both parties had been made aware of the risk to both staff and patients had the dispensers not been available.”

Source location

2013-0300-Response-by-South-Tees-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2013

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

Make staff aware of the importance of keeping the area clean and tidy and reporting environmental problems immediately.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are aware that this occurred and plans are in place to ensure that there will be no repetition of these events. In particular, we have ensured that all staff are aware of the importance of keeping the area clean and tidy. We have also commenced a programme of checks to ensure that the hand gel dispensers are correctly located and maintained. At the same time, we have made all staff aware of the need to check the environment and to report any problems immediately.”

Source location

2013-0300-Response-by-South-Tees-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 27 December 2013

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

Return hand-gel dispensers to their correct locations throughout the department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Evidence given that the A&E department was very busy on the night that Mr Collins died. There were several members of the A&E department, however further evidence was given that the collected hand gels were not in the correct place and had been incorrectly located by the department. The design of the department ensures that all cubicles are close together and there is not a great distance to travel between them. This also applies to the hand gel dispensers, which are located throughout the department. The issue of the hand gel dispensers was discussed with the staff and the matter was addressed. The hand gel dispensers were subsequently returned to their correct positions.”

Source location

2013-0300-Response-by-South-Tees-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2013

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

Remind nursing staff to complete and accurately record patient observations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Evidence given that the nursing notes in A&E were not fully completed and were at times not completed. The recording of Mr Collins’ observations was not always adequate. The Trust has reviewed the relevant documentation and identified that the observation records had not been completed appropriately. Following this review and the feedback from the management team, the nursing staff were reminded of the importance of complete and accurate recording of observations.”

Source location

2013-0300-Response-by-South-Tees-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2013

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 department’s layout and distributed hand-gel dispensers meant staff did not have a significant distance to travel between cubicles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Evidence given that the A&E department was very busy on the night that Mr Collins died. There were several members of the A&E department, however further evidence was given that the collected hand gels were not in the correct place and had been incorrectly located by the department. The design of the department ensures that all cubicles are close together and there is not a great distance to travel between them. This also applies to the hand gel dispensers, which are located throughout the department. The issue of the hand gel dispensers was discussed with the staff and the matter was addressed. The hand gel dispensers were subsequently returned to their correct positions.”

Source location

2013-0300-Response-by-South-Tees-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2013

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 Trust found no evidence that Mr Collins could access hand gel at the nurses’ station or that this contributed to his death.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We can find no evidence to the effect that Mr Collins was able to access hand gel at the nurses’ station. If you have any evidence to the contrary or any evidence that this contributed to his death then we would be grateful to receive it so that we can investigate further.”

Source location

2013-0300-Response-by-South-Tees-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 27 December 2013

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

Trust policy considered the Early Warning Score insufficient to require medical review, so observation levels and frequency were managed under existing arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The Trust’s first admission to A&E on 1.01.12, between 00:44 and his discharge at 04:30 was as the ACE record suggested. The Trust’s Policy C316 Recommendation and Response to Acute Illness in Adult Hospital Patients set out standards for the assessment of acutely ill patients. Early Warning Score was calculated as 2 on admission and according to Trust policy this would not constitute an indication for a medical review. Level of observation and frequency of observations was therefore managed in accordance with current Trust policy and indeed would not have required a doctor to review.”

Source location

2013-0300-Response-by-South-Tees-Hospitals-NHS-Foundation-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 27 December 2013

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026