PFD report

Paul Guy Robert Harries · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Apr 2026•West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

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 raised4

  1. Failure to translate GP-expressed urgency into accurate urgent booking codes
    Part of recurring concern: Unclear and unreliable GP access and referral pathways
  2. Failure to report or urgently highlight clinically significant incidental ED findings to the GP
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically significant diagnostic findings to patients and care providers
  3. Incomplete integration of referral IT 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

    Audit referral categorisation against triaging Consultants’ clinical narratives.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2026.
  2. Action

    Review all Emergency Department imaging reports, follow up incidental or relevant findings, and inform GPs where appropriate.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2026.
  3. Action

    Educate triaging Consultants to use e-RS accurately for referral categorisation.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2026.

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 translate GP-expressed urgency into accurate urgent booking codes

Wider context from the report

“Although I accept that a system of audits is now under way, these are evidently retrospective and the changes made do not appear to fully resolve the observed weaknesses and risk of differences apparent in the inquest within the GP-Consultant surgeon-Careflow booking chain whereby the urgency expressed by the GP does not successfully translate into an urgent booking, because there remains the risk of manual coding error and/or that there is no express reason given or reported back to the GP as to why their patient is or will be afforded the proposed urgency. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unclear and unreliable GP access and referral pathways.

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 report or urgently highlight clinically significant incidental ED findings to the GP

Wider context from the report

“Incidental findings from tests conducted in the ED are not always reported to the GP where these may not relate to the presenting complaint. ED policy appears to remain inconsistent. This is especially important as it means a Patient with a significant condition, for which they are under their GP, may have a change in that condition identified at the ED which is not then always reported back or highlighted urgently to the GP. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically significant diagnostic findings to patients and care providers.

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

Incomplete integration of referral IT systems

Wider context from the report

“Again, although there is current and considerable planned progress on integration of IT systems, this work is not yet complete and referrals remain reliant on 3 separate systems which are not yet fully joined up. ”

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 provide or report the reason for the proposed referral urgency to the GP

Wider context from the report

“Although I accept that a system of audits is now under way, these are evidently retrospective and the changes made do not appear to fully resolve the observed weaknesses and risk of differences apparent in the inquest within the GP-Consultant surgeon-Careflow booking chain whereby the urgency expressed by the GP does not successfully translate into an urgent booking, because there remains the risk of manual coding error and/or that there is no express reason given or reported back to the GP as to why their patient is or will be afforded the proposed urgency. ”

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

Audit referral categorisation against triaging Consultants’ clinical narratives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The function of e-RS allows for identification of urgent or routine patients providing referring GPs and triaging Consultants use this function accurately and convert referrals from one category to another when clinically appropriate. Internally, this has resulted in education for the triaging Consultants to ensure that they are aware of the functions of e-RS and are able to use it accurately. It has also resulted in regular audits to check the categorisation of referrals against the narrative provided by the triaging Consultants.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 17 June 2026

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

Review all Emergency Department imaging reports, follow up incidental or relevant findings, and inform GPs where appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Lead Consultant for the Emergency Department (ED) at the Royal Sussex County Hospital has confirmed that there is now a system in place, introduced in 2026, to review all imaging reports obtained in the ED. The ED team check on incidental or relevant unrelated findings and ensure that follow-up arrangements are in place and/or the patient’s GP is informed. In addition, our hospital imaging reports are also available on the electronic system which the GPs access and review.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 17 June 2026

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

Educate triaging Consultants to use e-RS accurately for referral categorisation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The function of e-RS allows for identification of urgent or routine patients providing referring GPs and triaging Consultants use this function accurately and convert referrals from one category to another when clinically appropriate. Internally, this has resulted in education for the triaging Consultants to ensure that they are aware of the functions of e-RS and are able to use it accurately. It has also resulted in regular audits to check the categorisation of referrals against the narrative provided by the triaging Consultants.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 17 June 2026

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

Fully implement the Trust-wide electronic patient record system with Chief Information Officer support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our Chief Information Officer is supporting this work while the Trust fully implements the Trust wide EPR (electronic patient record) system.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2026

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.3

  1. 1

    Share the Regulation 28 report across the Trust for learning and senior oversight of actions taken.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2026.
  2. 2

    Develop integrated electronic notifications for GPs and referring Consultants when patients miss investigation or imaging appointments, initially for Vascular Assessment Unit patients.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 June 2026.
  3. 3

    Maintain a database tracking investigations and follow-up for AAA patients meeting the surgical intervention threshold, with weekly review.

    Stated by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2026.

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

Share the Regulation 28 report across the Trust for learning and senior oversight of actions taken.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Regulation 28 report has been shared widely at the Trust to ensure learning and senior oversight of the actions we have taken.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 17 June 2026

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 integrated electronic notifications for GPs and referring Consultants when patients miss investigation or imaging appointments, initially for Vascular Assessment Unit patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are looking into integrating the electronic systems so that GPs and referring Consultants are notified when patients do not attend appointments for investigations or imaging arranged for them. This is being developed locally for the Vascular Assessment Unit patients with a view to piloting it. For patients with AAA who have met the threshold for surgical intervention, we have developed a database to enable us to track the investigation and follow-up of all patients. This is reviewed weekly. Mr Harries never met the threshold”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 17 June 2026

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

Maintain a database tracking investigations and follow-up for AAA patients meeting the surgical intervention threshold, with weekly review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are looking into integrating the electronic systems so that GPs and referring Consultants are notified when patients do not attend appointments for investigations or imaging arranged for them. This is being developed locally for the Vascular Assessment Unit patients with a view to piloting it. For patients with AAA who have met the threshold for surgical intervention, we have developed a database to enable us to track the investigation and follow-up of all patients. This is reviewed weekly. Mr Harries never met the threshold”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 17 June 2026

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