PFD report

Dennis Peter Alfred Warner · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Jan 2019•West London

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised5

  1. Failure to provide discharge information in a form the patient could comprehend and retain
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carers
  2. Use of suboptimal chest X-ray imaging after chest injury
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable chest X-ray imaging and interpretation
  3. Lack of available appropriate examination capacity in the emergency department
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency-department crowding leaving patients without appropriate clinical space
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 discharge information in a form the patient could comprehend and retain

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Warner suffered from advanced dementia and was the main carer for his elderly wife who also suffered with dementia. He was given information about managing his injury on discharge which he was demonstrably unable to comprehend or remember. Specifically, it was recorded by the examining clinicians that he was unable to answer any orientation questions or to remember the reason for his being in hospital. (2) The Emergency department was full beyond capacity and he was examined in a meeting room as no cubicles were available (3) chest xray was performed. I heard in written evidence from ████████ Consultant in Emergency Medicine that chest xray is a suboptimal modality for imaging the chest after injury often underestimating both the number of rib fractures and the extent of any intrathoracic injury(4) there was a delay in senior clinician review of the chest xrays after reporting and a passive approach to contacting Mr Warner was taken by the reviewing clinician. An incorrect number was held for Mr Warner but even if contact had been made then he would have had difficulty comprehending and retaining the information; attempts to contact to contact the GP by phone were abandoned because the phone was not answered. A letter was sent which was described as misleading. Consequently the efforts made to contact and recall the patient were inadequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carers.

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

Use of suboptimal chest X-ray imaging after chest injury

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Warner suffered from advanced dementia and was the main carer for his elderly wife who also suffered with dementia. He was given information about managing his injury on discharge which he was demonstrably unable to comprehend or remember. Specifically, it was recorded by the examining clinicians that he was unable to answer any orientation questions or to remember the reason for his being in hospital. (2) The Emergency department was full beyond capacity and he was examined in a meeting room as no cubicles were available (3) chest xray was performed. I heard in written evidence from ████████ Consultant in Emergency Medicine that chest xray is a suboptimal modality for imaging the chest after injury often underestimating both the number of rib fractures and the extent of any intrathoracic injury(4) there was a delay in senior clinician review of the chest xrays after reporting and a passive approach to contacting Mr Warner was taken by the reviewing clinician. An incorrect number was held for Mr Warner but even if contact had been made then he would have had difficulty comprehending and retaining the information; attempts to contact to contact the GP by phone were abandoned because the phone was not answered. A letter was sent which was described as misleading. Consequently the efforts made to contact and recall the patient were inadequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable chest X-ray imaging and interpretation.

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 available appropriate examination capacity in the emergency department

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Warner suffered from advanced dementia and was the main carer for his elderly wife who also suffered with dementia. He was given information about managing his injury on discharge which he was demonstrably unable to comprehend or remember. Specifically, it was recorded by the examining clinicians that he was unable to answer any orientation questions or to remember the reason for his being in hospital. (2) The Emergency department was full beyond capacity and he was examined in a meeting room as no cubicles were available (3) chest xray was performed. I heard in written evidence from ████████ Consultant in Emergency Medicine that chest xray is a suboptimal modality for imaging the chest after injury often underestimating both the number of rib fractures and the extent of any intrathoracic injury(4) there was a delay in senior clinician review of the chest xrays after reporting and a passive approach to contacting Mr Warner was taken by the reviewing clinician. An incorrect number was held for Mr Warner but even if contact had been made then he would have had difficulty comprehending and retaining the information; attempts to contact to contact the GP by phone were abandoned because the phone was not answered. A letter was sent which was described as misleading. Consequently the efforts made to contact and recall the patient were inadequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency-department crowding leaving patients without appropriate clinical space.

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 the contact and recall process to communicate effectively with the patient or GP

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Warner suffered from advanced dementia and was the main carer for his elderly wife who also suffered with dementia. He was given information about managing his injury on discharge which he was demonstrably unable to comprehend or remember. Specifically, it was recorded by the examining clinicians that he was unable to answer any orientation questions or to remember the reason for his being in hospital. (2) The Emergency department was full beyond capacity and he was examined in a meeting room as no cubicles were available (3) chest xray was performed. I heard in written evidence from ████████ Consultant in Emergency Medicine that chest xray is a suboptimal modality for imaging the chest after injury often underestimating both the number of rib fractures and the extent of any intrathoracic injury(4) there was a delay in senior clinician review of the chest xrays after reporting and a passive approach to contacting Mr Warner was taken by the reviewing clinician. An incorrect number was held for Mr Warner but even if contact had been made then he would have had difficulty comprehending and retaining the information; attempts to contact to contact the GP by phone were abandoned because the phone was not answered. A letter was sent which was described as misleading. Consequently the efforts made to contact and recall the patient were inadequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient contact during urgent recall and follow-up.

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 senior clinician review of reported chest X-rays

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Warner suffered from advanced dementia and was the main carer for his elderly wife who also suffered with dementia. He was given information about managing his injury on discharge which he was demonstrably unable to comprehend or remember. Specifically, it was recorded by the examining clinicians that he was unable to answer any orientation questions or to remember the reason for his being in hospital. (2) The Emergency department was full beyond capacity and he was examined in a meeting room as no cubicles were available (3) chest xray was performed. I heard in written evidence from ████████ Consultant in Emergency Medicine that chest xray is a suboptimal modality for imaging the chest after injury often underestimating both the number of rib fractures and the extent of any intrathoracic injury(4) there was a delay in senior clinician review of the chest xrays after reporting and a passive approach to contacting Mr Warner was taken by the reviewing clinician. An incorrect number was held for Mr Warner but even if contact had been made then he would have had difficulty comprehending and retaining the information; attempts to contact to contact the GP by phone were abandoned because the phone was not answered. A letter was sent which was described as misleading. Consequently the efforts made to contact and recall the patient were inadequate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide effective senior clinical oversight of patient care.

Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026