PFD report

David Michael O’Brien · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Dec 2021•Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside

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
11

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised11

  1. Failure to follow specialist advice to stop wheelchair use when it was unsafe
  2. Poor record keeping of safety-relevant care information
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  3. Poor communication of safety-relevant information between staff
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

    There were no reasonable grounds to suspect an offence under Regulations 12 and 22, so formal criminal investigation was not undertaken.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionDisputes 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 to follow specialist advice to stop wheelchair use when it was unsafe

Wider context from the report

“4. The evidence from Occupational Therapy contained a clear and contemporaneous note dated 7.11.09 that they informed Springfield Health Care that they were not the correct service and provided contact details for Wheelchair Services. Advice is clearly documented within the evidence from Occupational Therapy that “we cannot assess a wheelchair no matter how urgent and they must contact Wheelchair Services.” The note goes on to state, “[Springfield Health Care] advised client is at severe risk of falling or choking and duty OT advised that client should be maintained in bed if he cannot safely access his wheelchair.” Springfield Health Care “does not recall that advice. Mr O’Brien continued to use the wheelchair every day following this advice, being transferred by hoist into it by his carers. ”

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

Poor record keeping of safety-relevant care information

Wider context from the report

“7. The evidence that I heard suggests that Springfield Health Care have poor record keeping and poor communication between staff. It also suggests that as an agency, it is not aware of which agencies are responsible for providing assistance to its clients. Advice given by other agencies appears not to have been documented or followed. ”

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

Poor communication of safety-relevant information between staff

Wider context from the report

“7. The evidence that I heard suggests that Springfield Health Care have poor record keeping and poor communication between staff. It also suggests that as an agency, it is not aware of which agencies are responsible for providing assistance to its clients. Advice given by other agencies appears not to have been documented or followed. ”

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 refer wheelchair fit and seatbelt concerns to the correct specialist service

Wider context from the report

“3. Whilst Springfield Health Care contacted Occupational Therapy to report concerns that the wheelchair appeared too big and his seatbelt too loose, Occupational Therapy was not the correct service to address these issues. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable wheelchair fall-prevention 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

Failure to identify which agencies are responsible for client assistance

Wider context from the report

“7. The evidence that I heard suggests that Springfield Health Care have poor record keeping and poor communication between staff. It also suggests that as an agency, it is not aware of which agencies are responsible for providing assistance to its clients. Advice given by other agencies appears not to have been documented or followed. ”

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

Risk of wheelchair toppling for partially sighted and top-heavy users

Wider context from the report

“2. Carers from Springfield Health Care gave evidence that Mr O’Brien’s use of the wheelchair was “an accident waiting to happen” as he was partially sighted, “top heavy and could topple over out of his chair”. ”

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 restrict wheelchair use to mobility when no safe alternative seating was available

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard evidence from Springfield Health Care Services that Mr O’Brien was using his wheelchair throughout the day and was either in bed or transferred to his wheelchair with nowhere else for him to safely sit. This excessive use was contrary to advice from Wheelchair Services, who had advised that the wheelchair was only to be used as a mobility aid. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clear and followed instructions for safe equipment use.

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 communicate specialist wheelchair assessment and advice to care staff

Wider context from the report

“6. Springfield Health Care state that they were not aware of the assessment on 20.12.19 by Wheelchair Services or the advice given, despite one of their carers being present during the assessment. On 1.1.2020 Mr O’Brien fell from his wheelchair sustaining injuries which ultimately led to his death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording and confirmation of specialist clinical advice.

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 follow mobility-only wheelchair advice and provide safe general seating

Wider context from the report

“5. Evidence from Wheelchair Services was that an assessment of the wheelchair took place in Mr O’Brien’s home on 20.12.19. Mr O’Brien and one of his regular carers from Springfield Health Care were present. His seatbelt was tightened and advice was given by Wheelchair Services that the wheelchair was only for use to mobilise and not for general seating. Notwithstanding this advice, Mr O’Brien continued to use the wheelchair throughout the day as his only seating option and was assisted into it by hoist by his carers. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clear and followed instructions for safe equipment use.

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 obtain a risk assessment of wheelchair use

Wider context from the report

“8. Springfield Healthcare accepts that it had not undertaken a risk assessment of Mr O’Brien’s use of the wheelchair, nor had it requested such an assessment be carried out by another agency. ”

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 document and follow advice from other agencies

Wider context from the report

“7. The evidence that I heard suggests that Springfield Health Care have poor record keeping and poor communication between staff. It also suggests that as an agency, it is not aware of which agencies are responsible for providing assistance to its clients. Advice given by other agencies appears not to have been documented or followed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably record safety information received from external organisations.

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

There were no reasonable grounds to suspect an offence under Regulations 12 and 22, so formal criminal investigation was not undertaken.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The second took place after the inquest and took account of the evidence gathered during the coronial investigation and specifically the concerns raised at points 1-8 of your Regulation 28 report. In both cases the CQC concluded there were no reasonable grounds to suspect an offence under Regulations 12 and 22 RAR 2014 and no formal criminal investigation was undertaken.”

Source location

2022-0068-Response-from-CQC_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 8 March 2022

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

    Hold an internal management review meeting to consider further regulatory action, including the timing and focus of a Springfield inspection addressing the reported concerns.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 March 2022.

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

Hold an internal management review meeting to consider further regulatory action, including the timing and focus of a Springfield inspection addressing the reported concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In this case, we have reviewed the information received by you, both in terms of the evidence gathered during the coronial investigation and shared with CQC, and the concerns set out in section 5 of your Regulation 28 PDF report along with information we hold about the service. CQC has identified a number of areas where Springfield should make improvements to protect service users from potential continuing risks. We will be holding an internal management review meeting to consider what further action may be required including when an inspection of Springfield is carried out and the focus of any inspection to include the concerns raised at section 5 of your PFD report. We will inform you of the action we propose to take once our internal management review process is complete.”

Source location

2022-0068-Response-from-CQC_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 8 March 2022

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