PFD report

THOMAS PATRICK MAHER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Jun 2014•Manchester South

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
8

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
11

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 raised8

  1. Unavailability of nursing notes, observation charts and pressure ulcer charts
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe care
  2. Inappropriate placement of patients on a complex discharge ward
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure people are placed in care settings suitable for their needs
  3. Failure to update falls risk and bed rails assessments in accordance with policy
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of falls risksPart of recurring concern: Unreliable bedrail safety controls
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.10

  1. Action

    Run the Health Records Improvement Programme to address patient-record management risks.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 June 2014.
  2. Action

    Implement the Patientrack electronic observation and early-warning-score monitoring system across Trafford Hospital.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 June 2014.
  3. Action

    Require liaison with Clinical Site Coordinators before arranging inter-site transfers to confirm bed availability.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 June 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    TAB alarms do not activate when unclipped; the patient removed this alarm himself, so the proposed alarm-failure premise is disputed.

    Stated by Manchester University 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

Unavailability of nursing notes, observation charts and pressure ulcer charts

Wider context from the report

“1. All the nursing notes, observation charts and pressure ulcer charts for the period 20th December 2013 to 29th January 2014 are missing, and despite a widespread search by the hospital, it has proved impossible to locate them. This had the effect of hampering the High Level Investigation and potentially the inquest itself. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe care.

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

Inappropriate placement of patients on a complex discharge ward

Wider context from the report

“6. On the 5th February 2014 ████████ elderly care consultant, read Mr Maher’s notes and said that the complex discharge ward was not the appropriate place for Mr Maher to be and that he should be transferred to a medical or orthopaedic ward. Why was he on the inappropriate ward in the first place? ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure people are placed in care settings suitable for their needs.

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 update falls risk and bed rails assessments in accordance with policy

Wider context from the report

“2. On a number of occasions during his stay in the hospital, the falls risk assessment and the bed rails assessment were not updated per policy. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks; Unreliable bedrail safety controls.

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

Lack of nursing staff training and confidence in administering prescribed oral morphine

Wider context from the report

“5. On returning to the ward the doctors had prescribed oral morphine but the nursing staff were not trained/confident in giving this so the prescription had to be altered to oral morphine. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe medication administration.

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 informing next of kin after a hospital fall

Wider context from the report

“7. After he sustained the fall in hospital, there was a delay of almost four hours before his next of kin was informed. ”

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 of timely coordination and availability for inter-hospital patient transfers

Wider context from the report

“4. On or around the 3rd February, a discussion took place between the treating doctor at Trafford and an orthopaedic specialist at MRI, during which it was agreed that a bed was available at MRI and that Mr Maher would be transferred. The ambulance was ordered to transport him and Mr Maher was taken and placed in the vehicle. In fact it then transpired that there was no bed available so he had to be taken from the vehicle and returned to the ward at Trafford General. In the course of his evidence to me, the consultant Physician stated “we have major problems getting patients transferred to MRI and other hospitals, we frequently have to wait 3 or 4 days for transfer of a patient who should have gone immediately”. He then went on to state that in his opinion the ability to transfer patients between divisions of the same trust should be ‘second to none’ and in fact it is less than adequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure timely transfer to an appropriate hospital care environment; Inadequate coordination between hospitals during patient care; Unreliable healthcare patient transfer 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

Failure of patient-note transfer between paper-based and electronic hospital systems

Wider context from the report

“8. There is an apparent major problem with regard to patient notes where those at MRI are ‘paper based’ whereas those at Trafford are electronic. I was told that it will be at least two years before this situation is reconciled. This is inherently dangerous in that the treating doctors may not have the up to date notes available to them. Both senior doctors who gave evidence to me described the system of transfer of notes between hospitals as “impossible”. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable; Failure to reliably transfer medical records between healthcare organisations.

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 of a TAB alarm to remain attached or activate when no longer offering protection

Wider context from the report

“3. As a result of his perceived propensity to fall and to get out of bed, Mr Maher had a TAB alarm attached. It subsequently transpired that when he fell and broke his pelvis, this alarm had been removed and placed on his bed. If this were removed by a member of staff, then this would indicate a potentially negligent act; if removed by the patient then surely the alarm should activate to show that it is no longer offering protection. ”

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

Run the Health Records Improvement Programme to address patient-record management risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust acknowledges that the management of patient records is a significant risk. The risk is included on the Trust Risk Register and a Health Records Improvement Programme is underway to address the issues. As explained earlier, there is a longer term aim that all patient records, including nursing notes and charts, will be electronic across the whole of the Trust.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Implement the Patientrack electronic observation and early-warning-score monitoring system across Trafford Hospital.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the future, the recording of observations will be electronic with the implementation of the Patientrack early warning score monitoring system. The implementation of this new system is planned to commence across Trafford Hospital from the end of October 2014. Once fully installed, observation charts will always be available electronically.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Require liaison with Clinical Site Coordinators before arranging inter-site transfers to confirm bed availability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It has been agreed that in future all transfers between sites will not be arranged without liaison with the Clinical Site Coordinators to ensure that this unacceptable situation does not arise again.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Address immediate post-fall family notification expectations with the Ward Manager.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is usual practice to notify the family immediately of a fall occurring on the ward. It is not acceptable that the family were not informed for 4 hours. The Trust would like to apologise for this and to reassure the family that this has been addressed with the Ward Manager. The Ward Manager now recognises that a call should have been made directly after the fall to inform his family, rather than waiting the outcome of the x-ray.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Scan records for deceased patients and patients involved in high-level incidents into the electronic patient record as a priority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Trafford Hospital acknowledges that the loss of these nursing records is unacceptable. In order to minimise the risk of this issue arising again, a new process has been implemented by the Trafford Medical Records Manager that all records, including nursing charts, for any patient who has died and for any patient involved in a high level incident will be scanned into the electronic patient records (EPR) system as a priority.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Monitor completion and updating of nursing risk assessments through daily matron rounds, ward-manager oversight and out-of-hours compliance reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Head of Nursing for Trafford has taken steps to address this issue and has established robust monitoring processes. Matrons undertake daily rounds of the ward areas and review the completion of all nursing documentation; this review focuses specifically on the completion of appropriate risk assessments and helps raise awareness with staff. Ward Managers also have responsibility for ongoing monitoring of compliance in their areas. In addition, the Out of Hours team review compliance with the completion and updating of risk assessments at night and at weekends with any non-compliance being addressed at the time with the individuals concerned and highlighted to the Ward Manager or Matron.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Develop and roll out the Chameleon electronic patient-record system across the Trust in stages.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is a longer term aim that all patient records, including nursing notes and charts, will be electronic across the whole of the Trust using a system called Chameleon. This will minimise the risks that documentation will be lost. The timeframe for this to be complete across the entire Trust is 2018. However, this is being developed and implemented in stages so it is likely that Trafford will be fully electronic before then.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Implement electronic patient records on Ward 16 so clinicians at both sites can access up-to-date notes without transferring paper records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Medical records at Trafford Hospital are electronic and are easily accessible to all medical staff at MRI on any computer. However, until February this year Ward 16, which is a ward based at Trafford but managed by Manchester Royal Infirmary, were still using paper documentation. This is why ████████ was unable to access Mr Maher's records. Ward 16 is now using the EPR system in line with the rest of Trafford Hospital. Therefore, up to date case notes are now available to Clinicians at both sites with no further need for transfer of paper notes between sites.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Increase use of seat alarms for patients who do not comply with TAB alarms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The hospital has recently increased the use of seat alarms for those patients who are not compliant with the use of TAB alarms. These have a sensor which alarms when the patient stands up and are considered to be more reliable than the TAB alarm system for this patient group.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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 embedding and refining the inter-site transfer process through ongoing review and small adjustments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Trafford Division acknowledges that since implementation of the New Clinical Model in November 2013, there has been a period of significant change and time needed for the new transfer process to be embedded. A transfer policy has been in place since the New Clinical Model was established but adherence to this policy was variable in the early stages. Continuous efforts have been made to ensure that this is fully embedded in practice and we can offer assurance that since the start of this new system there have been 485 patient transfers between the two sites with no instances of patient harm reported as a result. Trafford Division is confident that staff are aware of the transfer policy and that this has been communicated to them. The Division is continually reviewing and making small adjustments to the transfer process in order to make improvements.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

TAB alarms do not activate when unclipped; the patient removed this alarm himself, so the proposed alarm-failure premise is disputed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“TAB alarms are useful only as part of the wider falls prevention strategy as they reduce rather than eliminate the risk of falling. TAB alarms are battery operated alarms which are clipped to the clothing and alert staff that a patient has started to mobilise independently when they are unsafe or unsteady to do so. It is not a feature of TAB alarms to activity if they are unclipped, only if they are pulled. They do not alarm to indicate that they are no longer offering protection. Mr Maher’s TAB alarm had been removed and placed on his bed. There is no indication that the TAB alarm was removed by a member of staff. Mr Maher told staff on the ward that he had removed it himself as he did not want to bother the staff.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Specialist orthopaedic transfer was unnecessary because the fracture required bed rest, pain relief and pressure-area care available through nursing care on any ward.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 03 February 2014, ████████ agreed with ████████ view that Mr Maher should move to an Orthopaedic ward at Manchester Royal Infirmary as Mr Maher had a fractured pelvis. Mr Maher was not transferred on 03 February 2014, as previously explained, due to the unavailability of a bed. Mr Maher was discussed by the Trauma team at MRI on 04 February 2014. The team made the decision that Mr Maher did not require transfer to Manchester Royal Infirmary as he was confident that Mr Maher did not need to be on an Orthopaedic ward as he did not require any level of specialised orthopaedic care for his fracture. Mr Maher needed bed rest, pain relief and pressure area care, all of which can be provided through good nursing care on any ward.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Ward 16 was considered capable of providing the required medical and nursing care despite specialising in complex discharge planning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ward 16 is a ward which specialises in complex discharge planning. The Trust would like to reassure the family that the level of medical and nursing input on Ward 16 is as good as on a Medical ward and Ward 16 is able to manage patients with complex problems.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

Electronic records were accessible at both sites, so no further transfer of paper notes was considered necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Medical records at Trafford Hospital are electronic and are easily accessible to all medical staff at MRI on any computer. However, until February this year Ward 16, which is a ward based at Trafford but managed by Manchester Royal Infirmary, were still using paper documentation. This is why ████████ was unable to access Mr Maher's records. Ward 16 is now using the EPR system in line with the rest of Trafford Hospital. Therefore, up to date case notes are now available to Clinicians at both sites with no further need for transfer of paper notes between sites.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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

    Remind consultants to escalate transfer concerns to management and report incidents through the Trust incident-reporting system.

    Stated by Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 June 2014.

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 consultants to escalate transfer concerns to management and report incidents through the Trust incident-reporting system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ has provided examples of a small number of other patients where problems had occurred with transfer. ████████ Clinical Effectiveness Lead, has contacted the Consultants concerned to identify the patients and will investigate to see what lessons can be learned. The Consultants concerned have been reminded of the importance of escalating these concerns to the management team and reporting any incidents through the Trust’s incident reporting system so that they can be investigated in a timely way.”

Source location

2014-0252-Response-by-Central-Manchester-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 5 June 2014

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