Search the hub

At 10.45am on 23 November 2024, Peter Anzani sadly died from a pulmonary embolism in Birmingham Heartlands Hospital. He had been admitted to hospital the day before and was receiving treatment for a community acquired pneumonia when he suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed due to a pulmonary embolism. Peter had previously suffered a number of falls at home in August and September 2021 and was subsequently diagnosed with suffering a spontaneous infection of the cervical vertebral canal which caused a complete spinal cord injury and left him tetraplegic. This made him more vulnerable to chest infections and pulmonary embolisms which he experienced in the years that followed. There is no evidence of any human intervention that rendered his death unnatural.  Based on information from the Deceased’s treating clinicians the medical cause of death was determined to be:  1a Pulmonary Embolism 1b 1c 1d II Pneumonia Spinal cord injury resulting in Tetraplegia Matters of concern To The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust I considered evidence from a [REDACTED] who indicated at paragraphs 20-21 of his statement, “I did not see any record of his pulse, blood pressure or oxygen saturation. The normal practice is to complete these observations, and I would expect this to be done, especially with him presenting with chest issues. However, I am unable to comment why this was not recorded or confirm that these were carried out. (21) This is a learning point for the department, and I have taken steps to ensure this learning is taken forward by theTrust. I have alerted the Sister in charge of the Spinal Injuries Outpatients’ Department and requested that adequate measures are taken to ensure that all observations made are recorded in the outpatient forms…” It was unclear whether this was a single one-off event involving human error or indicative of a wider and systemic issue involving a lack of training. There was no evidence before the court that this “learning point” had been actioned or that any adequate steps had been taken to ensure proper and accurate recording of records by staff. There is a real risk of future deaths occurring where staff do not have adequate training and that patient records are not being properly completed. To NHS England / Department of Health and Social Care I heard evidence that The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (“The Trust”) have been experiencing difficulties with patient waiting lists – due to both an increase in the quantity of patients being treated and staffing shortages – which has led to patients waiting longer than is reasonable or necessary for reviews and treatments. As part of the inquest, there was evidence that Peter Anzani himself had been waiting for nearly a year for a follow-up review, which should have been carried out after no more than 6 months. I heard evidence from representatives of the Trust that they have repeatedly requested additional funds for workforce development and expansion to assist with cutting patient waiting lists and waiting times. I understand that an initial Workplace Funding Review was submitted in 2023 but was rejected by NHS England due to a funding shortage. I understand that a further Workplace Funding Review was submitted in the Autumn of 2024, but in February/March of this year, NHS England indicated that the same would again be rejected under a “no growth policy”. Whilst naturally I am aware of the pressures on the public purse and on the NHS generally, it is concerning to hear that the Trust do not appear to be being adequately supported financially by NHS England, and do not currently appear to be able to address their workplace staffing issues without additional financial support (which does not appear to be forthcoming). It is obvious that where patients are waiting for longer than is reasonable or necessary for treatment or reviews, there is a real risk of deaths occurring. No patient should be waiting longer than absolutely necessary for treatment. In light of HM Government’s decision on 13 March 2025 to abolish NHS England and for its role to be subsumed within the Department of Health and Social Care, this report is being sent to both Agencies to consider, as it relates to issues of both a local and national significance.

Making data on medical interventions easier to collect and collate would increase the odds of spotting patterns of harm, according to the panel of a recent HSJ webinar. When Baroness Julia Cumberlege was asked to review the avoidable harm caused by two medicines and one medical device, she encountered no shortage of data. “We found that the NHS is awash with data, but it’s very fractured,” says Baroness Cumberlege, who chaired the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review and now co-chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group which raises awareness of and support for its findings. It was a challenge on which Professor Sir Terence Stephenson had cause to deeply reflect back in 2014. That was the year in which he was asked to chair an independent review of medical devices, following concerns about the safety of metal-on-metal hip replacements and PIP silicone breast implants. “The NHS stepped up to the plate really quickly and said: ‘Even if it’s a private hospital that put this in, we will take it out to protect your safety,’” recalled Sir Terence, now Nuffield professor of child health at Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health and chair of the Health Research Authority for England. “But the big problem was they couldn’t identify who had which implants. No doubt somebody somewhere had written this down with a fountain pen and then someone spilt the tea over it and the unique information was lost.”

Potential serious risks to patient safety have been identified with the use of Magentus Software Limited’s Euroking maternity information system. These concern specific data fields: certain new patient information, recorded during a patient contact, can overwrite ('back copy') information previously recorded in the patient’s pregnancy record. certain pregnancy-level data (information relevant only to a specific pregnancy event) can be saved at a patient level (where information relevant throughout a person's life is recorded), causing new information to overwrite (‘back copy’) previously recorded data across an entire patient record. certain recorded pregnancy-level data can pre-populate into new pregnancy records (‘forward copy’), which can mean clinicians will see incorrect patient information, and attempts to correct this can result in the issue described at (ii) above. Actions Organisations using Euroking: 1. must consider if Euroking meets their maternity service’s needs and ensure that their local configuration is safe. To do this they will need to work with their supplier to make changes to their existing system, and this will need to be overseen by their clinical safety officer. 2. must review and ensure that each data field within the system does not copy forward or backward. 3. if procurement of a new system is deemed necessary, organisations must ensure that all clinical information is appropriately backed-up, accessible for any future requirement and, when Euroking becomes a legacy system, must comply with action Organisations with legacy Euroking contracts: 4. must implement a process to ensure users who access any legacy Euroking records will be alerted to the issues identified in this alert. Organisations currently using another maternity information system/EPR: 5. must reassess the clinical safety of their maternity EPR with a suitably qualified clinical safety officer and, as a minimum, must ensure that the issues listed under ‘Additional information’ relating to the back and forward copying of information do not occur. 6. must assess that their current maternity EPR complies with the core maternity capabilities in the Maternity Digital Capabilities Framework.

Between 2009 and 2010, 48 year-old David Richards was admitted to intensive care during the ‘swine flu pandemic’. He spent six weeks in an intensive care unit (ICU), first on mechanical ventilation and later receiving extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment. He recovered and became a survivor of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During his 50 days in intensive care, David's former partner Rose kept an ‘ICU diary’. Rose recorded clinical updates as well as conversations with relatives and staff who were by David's bedside. In this article, David describes how important this diary has been to him understanding and processing his experience. It forms a record not just of procedures, treatments and clinical signs but of how he reacted, how he appeared to feel and how he tried to communicate during a time that were permeated by delirium.

For many years the NHS has talked about the need to shift to a more personalised approach to health and care—where people have choice and control over the way their care is planned and delivered, based on “what matters” to them and their individual strengths, needs and preferences. In this HSJ article, Ben Wilson, product solution director at Orion Health, discusses the progress, benefits and future possibilities for an integrated, patient-centric healthcare system.

Hindsight bias (colloquially known as ‘the retrospectoscope’) is the tendency to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. It has been shown to play a significant role in the evaluation of an past event, and has been demonstrated in both medical and judicial settings. This study in Clinical Medicine aimed to determine whether hindsight bias impacts on retrospective case note review, through an internet survey completed by doctors of different grades. The authors found that in some cases, doctors are markedly more critical of identical healthcare when a patient dies compared to when a patient survives. Hindsight bias while reviewing care when a patient survives might prevent identification of learning arising from errors. They also suggest that hindsight bias combined with a legal duty of candour will cause families to be informed that patients died because of healthcare error when this is not a fact.

This tool from the Parkinson's Association of Ireland allows people with Parkinson's to record their essential medical information in an easy to access format, should they need assistance or medical treatment. It includes: information about the physical symptoms of Parkinson's, including how it affects speech and movement. instructions on how to interact with the person if they are having difficulty communicating. personal details and emergency contacts details of medications and treatments the person is taking.

NHSX has launched a brand new information governance portal providing a 'one-stop shop' for NHS policies and guidance.

NHSX recently launched a brand new information governance portal providing a 'one-stop shop' for NHS policies and guidance. The new portal covers everything from GDPR in research to record management. But even with the new portal, navigating NHS guidance on data isn't easy. This article in Global Compliance News picks out six essential items to have on your radar if your organisation accesses or uses NHS data.

'This is me' is a simple leaflet for anyone receiving professional care who is living with dementia or experiencing delirium or other communication difficulties. 'This is me' can be used to record details about a person who can't easily share information about themselves. For example, it can be used to record: a person’s cultural and family background important events, people and places from their life their preferences and routines.

This NHS Resolution video outlines the key components of good medical record keeping and highlights common mistakes to avoid.

The Patient Safety Authority has put together information and tips for patients on a range of topics. C-Diff Dentures in the healthcare setting Discharge instructions Drug allergies End of life care Falls at home Getting the right diagnosis Handwashing Hospital ratings Influenza (the flu) Latex allergies Medical records Medication safety at home Medication safety: Hospital and doctor's office Metric-based patient weights MRI safety MRSA Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) Norovirus (stomach flu) Obstructive sleep apneoa Pneumonia Pressure injuries (bed sores) Sepsis What is an MRI? Wrong-site surgery