PFD report

Toni Piel · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Jul 2015•Manchester North

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

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. Failure to assess home circumstances and available observation when discharging patients following head injury
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuriesPart of recurring concern: Failure to ensure safe post-discharge arrangements for vulnerable patients and residents
  2. Failure to document discharge risk-factor assessments in clinical records
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation of safety risk assessmentsPart 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.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Operational improvements to head injury assessment and discharge are the responsibility of the involved NHS trust.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 assess home circumstances and available observation when discharging patients following head injury

Wider context from the report

“i) At the time the deceased was discharged home following the head injury on 10 December 2014 the deceased’s home circumstances were apparently not taken into account. Had such an assessment been made it would have been noted that there was no-one able to observe the deceased at home. The NICE clinical guideline 175 issued January 2014 recommends that this should be taken into account. ii) No assessment of the risk factors in discharging the deceased was documented in the deceased’s records. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of head injury assessment and treatment pathways to reliably recognise and manage head injuries; Failure to ensure safe post-discharge arrangements for vulnerable patients and residents.

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 document discharge risk-factor assessments in clinical records

Wider context from the report

“i) At the time the deceased was discharged home following the head injury on 10 December 2014 the deceased’s home circumstances were apparently not taken into account. Had such an assessment been made it would have been noted that there was no-one able to observe the deceased at home. The NICE clinical guideline 175 issued January 2014 recommends that this should be taken into account. ii) No assessment of the risk factors in discharging the deceased was documented in the deceased’s records. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable documentation of safety risk assessments; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

Open source report

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

Operational improvements to head injury assessment and discharge are the responsibility of the involved NHS trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These are both operational matters for the trust involved. I note that your report has been sent to the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. I understand that Pennine Acute has undertaken a review of this case which has resulted in actions to improve the management, supervision, assessment and discharge of head injury patients in their care. The Trust will provide you with full details in its response.”

Source location

2015-0263-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 1 · response
Published 9 July 2015

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026