PFD report

Liane Davenport · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Oct 2019•Cumbria

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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 raised1

  1. Failure to consider and recommend blood-level monitoring for powerful antipsychotics in older, frail patients receiving long-term high-dose treatment
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable medication-specific blood-level monitoring
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

    Review measures for monitoring patients receiving prolonged high-dose antipsychotic treatment.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 September 2020.

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

  1. Position

    Routine plasma-level monitoring is not recommended for quetiapine or amisulpride because antipsychotic toxicity is assessed clinically.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear 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 to consider and recommend blood-level monitoring for powerful antipsychotics in older, frail patients receiving long-term high-dose treatment

Wider context from the report

“(1) Should monitoring of blood levels of powerful antipsychotics be considered and recommended for patients on long term high dose treatment, particularly as they become older & more frail? ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable medication-specific blood-level monitoring.

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

Review measures for monitoring patients receiving prolonged high-dose antipsychotic treatment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of the above, the Trust considers that the care provided to Ms Davenport particularly in relation to her physical health monitoring was appropriate in the circumstances. However, to provide assurances to HM Coroner, the Trust has reviewed the measures which are in place to ensure that a patient’s physical health is sufficiently monitored when they are on HDAT for prolonged periods of time.”

Source location

2020-0136-Response-from-St-Nicholas-Hospital-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 21 September 2020

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

Routine plasma-level monitoring is not recommended for quetiapine or amisulpride because antipsychotic toxicity is assessed clinically.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, we note that, in any event, neither basic nor HDAT monitoring would have involved the monitoring of plasma levels of the specific antipsychotic medication that Ms Davenport was on (Quetiapine and Amisulpride) and this mode of investigation is not recommended in routine clinical practice by NICE, RCPsych or by the British Association of Psychopharmacology as the assessment of antipsychotic intolerance (or ‘toxicity’) is a clinical finding primarily associated with worsening side effects such as extrapyramidal effects, sedation, confusion and ECG changes.”

Source location

2020-0136-Response-from-St-Nicholas-Hospital-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 21 September 2020

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

    Implement Trust policy requiring additional physical-health monitoring for adults receiving high-dose antipsychotic treatment.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 September 2020.

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 Trust policy requiring additional physical-health monitoring for adults receiving high-dose antipsychotic treatment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have attached the Trust policy on HDAT monitoring (alongside the Trust Guidance to be read alongside this policy) for ease of reference which details the additional monitoring requirements for adult patients prescribed HDAT.”

Source location

2020-0136-Response-from-St-Nicholas-Hospital-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 21 September 2020

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