Search the hub

The review found that while in many cases care and treatment were appropriate, there were a number of cases that raised specific patient safety concerns. Below is a summary of key themes from this report: Out of area placements An out of area placement occurs when a person with acute mental health needs who requires inpatient care is admitted to a unit that does not form part of the usual local network of services. This review found that there was significant variation for people who are autistic and/or have a learning disability in this regard. This was most striking in the South West of England and Midlands regions, where 73% and 68% of all placements, respectively, were out of area compared to the national average of 57%. The report notes this can have significant impacts on the person affected by this, making it more difficult for them to maintain links with family, local services, communities and clinical/social work professionals. Hospital rather than community care It found that a significant number of patients covered by SWRs did not need to be in a hospital setting to receive the right care and treatment. The national average was 41%, while in the South West of England 53% of individuals did not need to be in hospital settings. The report linked this figure to delays in discharge processes, with patients staying in hospital settings for longer than needed as a result. Concerns about the involvement of family members and carers Concerningly, the report notes that examples of poor communication with family members and carers ‘far outweighed’ examples of effective communication, including: Being excluded from planning and decisions about their loved ones. Not being provided with basic information such as how to contact family members and visiting times. Not being listened to in relation to the care and treatment of their family member, or decisions about their care and wellbeing. There was regional variation in these figures, with one particularly striking case being an Integrated Care System stating that in 39% of their safe and wellbeing reviews, family representatives either could not be contacted for the purposes of the review, they did not want to be contacted or the individual did not want them to be contacted. Advocacy Another area of concern cited was the availability and quality of advocacy for people in hospital, which the report describes as generally inconsistent. Concerns included: Family members having to step into the role of advocates in place of professional advocacy, though they are generally not trained to do so, may not know all the options available and cannot be fully independent. Some provides being resistance to creating a “culture of importance” around advocacy. Poor advocacy awareness in places, which extended to limited attempts by providers to contact advocates and proactively involve them in processes and decisions relating to individuals. Safeguarding In the 3% of cases where safeguarding concerns were raised (50 out of 1,770), serious concerns noted by the report included: Inconsistent and/or high levels of restraint, seclusion and segregation. Patients not being assessed appropriately under the Mental Capacity Act or assessments not being completed in a timely way Harms associated with weight gain during admission (increasing the likelihood of health problems and premature mortality) and long lengths of stay. Issues associated with individuals being placed in inappropriate settings (for example, mixed-gender wards), the absence of CCTV in inpatient settings, issues with staff attitudes and relationships. Low quality and inconsistent of incident reporting. Inappropriate and inconsistent use of medication. The review also said that one region noted that safeguarding referrals were not always made appropriately, and plans were not always implemented to prevent the incidents from happening again. Physical health The report notes that it found multiple references to individuals with a high body mass index and significant weight gain following people being admitted to hospital, including instances where this led to people developing diabetes. This was a key area of concern also raised in the Cawston Park safeguarding adults review. Individual wellbeing and positive mental health The report noted that in many mental health inpatient settings there were not enough activities for people to do and not enough done to help maintain social connections. It noted that meaningful activities were not consistently available and, where they were, were not always age-appropriate, co-planned and person-centred. Workforce The report noted a number of workforce issues, including: Families and advocates raised concerns about whether wards were unsafe when there were significant staff shortages on them. Staff burnout. Heavy reliance on agency and/or temporary staff which can have negative impacts on patients being able to access regular activities and on patient-staff relationships. Reports of staff not having the appropriate training or skillset to effectively meet the needs of individuals. Conclusions and next steps Throughout the report there are a number of sections detailing ‘key considerations’ for providers and Integrated Care Systems, though no specific actions. It notes towards the end of the report that following on from this, NHS England, on a national and regional footprint, working with people with lived experience, family carers, integrated care boards, providers and commissioners, will bring partners together to look at specific actions that will address the challenges and themes highlighted through this thematic review over the next 12 months.

In this blog Helen discusses how Patient Safety Learning is working with Tim Edwards to raise awareness of the findings of his report, and its associated nine calls for action, to help improve pulmonary embolism outcomes. Read the full blog on the National Voices website. Related reading Independent review of pulmonary embolism fatalities in England & Wales – recent trends, excess deaths, their causes and risk management concerns (December 2022, Tim Edwards) Jenny, and why we must learn from her misdiagnosis of pulmonary embolism Pulmonary embolism misdiagnosis – a systemic problem (Tim Edwards, 4 January 2023) House of Commons Debate - Pulmonary Embolisms: Diagnosis (30 November 2022) Royal College of Radiologists: Briefing for pulmonary embolism debate (November 2022) HSIB - Clinical decision making: diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in emergency departments (24 March 2022)

Key recommendations Positively engaging DSCR providers not currently on the assured provider list A standard to ensure the inclusion and consultation of end-users at every stage of the design, production, and implementation process of any new technology A new forum for social care providers, end users, and technology providers to discuss digital solutions for the sector A call for financial support for digital inclusion among people in receipt of adult social care services Mandatory digital training for staff

Coroner's concerns Asher was entirely dependent upon a complex package of care as a highly vulnerable ventilator dependent child. Evidence at inquest was that on numerous occasions he was not provided with the prescribed 2:1 care. The care package, despite being described as one of the most complex and most expensive was not appropriately reviewed and there was no mandatory system of quality checks or formal review when there was a significant change in family circumstances. Quarterly reviews were not carried out without explanation. The primary responsibility fell upon the family members, namely Asher’s parents, who were also responsible for other children in the family and employed as teachers. Concerns raised by the parents were not taken for discussion to case conference or professional’s meetings and essentially not followed up at all, leaving the situation in the house dangerous with an ultimately calamitous outcome. There was a lack of scrutiny or reconciliation of Asher’s care package, which could have identified gaps that needed to be addressed. Training for the staff involved was unclear to the court and seemingly not in place or inadequate. A high turnover of staff was cited as one of the reasons, but this should have highlighted a need for increased training and scrutiny. The court was advised that new structures would be in place by July 2022. The production of this report therefore has been delayed to give the opportunity for those systems to be in place and reported to the court.

The 'Workforce: recruitment, training and retention' report outlines the scale of the workforce crisis: new research suggests the NHS in England is short of 12,000 hospital doctors and more than 50,000 nurses and midwives; evidence on workforce projections say an extra 475,000 jobs will be needed in health and an extra 490,000 jobs in social care by the early part of the next decade; hospital waiting lists reached a record high of nearly 6.5 million in April. The report finds the Government to have shown a marked reluctance to act decisively. The refusal to do proper workforce planning risked plans to tackle the Covid backlog - a key target for the NHS. The number of full-time equivalent GPs fell by more than 700 over three years to March 2022, despite a pledge to deliver 6,000 more. Appearing before the inquiry, the then Secretary of State Sajid Javid admitted he was not on track to deliver them. The report describes a situation where NHS pension arrangements force senior doctors to reduce working hours as a “national scandal” and calls for swift action to remedy. Maternity services are flagged as being under serious pressure with more than 500 midwives leaving in a single year. A year ago the Committee’s maternity safety inquiry concluded almost 2,000 more midwives were needed and almost 500 more obstetricians. The Secretary of State failed to give a deadline by when a shortfall in midwife numbers would be addressed. Pay is a crucial factor in recruitment and retention in social care. Government analysis estimated more than 17,000 jobs in care paid below the minimum wage.

Coroner's concerns Without changes in the NHS Pathway the 111 call handlers will not be adequately assisted by the Pathways to recognise the acutely unwell child, in particular: at the time of the conclusion of the inquest, there was no question within the NHS Pathways questionnaire concerning cold hands and feet for children aged over five at the time of the conclusion of the inquest, the question regarding green vomit, asked in respect to children over five, had an inappropriately high threshold (that is required severe pain for more than four hours before the question was engaged) and would not have been activated in Sebastian's case there is no indication that NHS Pathways/NHS Digital have reviewed the support arrangements for non-clinically qualified advisers to refer unusual cases to clinically qualified staff at the time of the conclusion of the inquest, NHS Pathways' questions did not allow meaningful assessment of pain in a child; that is to say questions about severity of pain and the ability of a child to communicate such pain should be reviewed at national governance level.

Matter of concerns: Inadequate training of doctors and other medical professionals re the risk of sepsis following Early Medical Terminations. Evidence from a wide range of clinicians who had cared for Sarah in March and April 2020 echoed each other. The clinician evidence revealed a common theme of lack of training, knowledge or experience on the part of physicians and medical staff (including GPs, pharmacist and acute hospital doctors) regarding the rare risk of sepsis following Early Medical Termination. The hospital trust accepted that at the time of Sarah’s death, there was confirmation bias in their thinking due to the Covid 19 pandemic and that other differential diagnosis were not considered in this case. Whilst the witness evidence was that Sepsis protocols were in place at both the GP surgery and the hospital trust, what is of particular concern is that none of the professionals who saw or spoke to Sarah were considering Sepsis in this case. Sarah was spoken to and seen by numerous medical professionals in both primary and secondary care but no sepsis protocols were initiated and the coroner found that the compounding delays in screening, diagnosis and treatment more than minimally contributed to a poor outcome in Sarah’s case.

Coroner's concerns There were excessive delays in handing over patients at hospital. The West Midlands Ambulance Service Serious Incident report found that there were excessive handover of patients at the Royal Stoke University Hospital, with some holding for over 4 hours. This impacted on the ability of the West Midlands Ambulance Service getting to patients. Oral evidence was given to the effect that this was a national issue, and not limited to the acute trusts within the West Midlands.

The report highlights the following key findings: The maternity service was offering care to women whose pregnancies represented a high risk, but did not have the necessary systems or staff with the appropriate skills in place to manage such cases. There was a lack of input from consultants at crucial times, and there was an over reliance on junior staff to manage complex and difficult cases with little guidance or support. Consultant obstetricians did not routinely carry out ward rounds when they were responsible for overseeing care in the labour ward and the teamwork between midwives and obstetricians was not as effective as it should have been. Therefore, there was no adequate mechanism in place for staff to discuss concerns that they may have had about the women. There was an excessive reliance on the use of locum and agency staff, who did not always receive the necessary guidance or support. Deficiencies in the management structures also contributed to the poor quality of care the women received, for example midwives were expected to manage a busy delivery suite that was reliant on agency and locum staff, with at times, little professional or managerial support. Around the time of the first deaths the midwives received little professional support from the supervisors of midwives. In the majority of cases the women attended their hospital and GP antenatal appointments and sought help when they felt unwell. Yet despite this, in a number of the cases, clinical staff failed to recognise and respond to the severity of the condition of the women, thereby reducing the chances of survival of the women. In some of the cases there were minor deficiencies in care which, in isolation, may not have had such a dramatic impact, but when occurring together had serious consequences for the health of the women concerned. The anaesthetic staff involved in the care of the women responded well, often in difficult circumstances. The haematology department responded efficiently in providing the necessary, and at times large, volumes of blood and blood products. In two of the cases there was an absence of documentation for surgical procedures that were carried out by the obstetric staff and in one case there was an absence of contemporaneous documentation. Related reading An independent review of serious untoward incidents and clinical governance systems within maternity services at Northwick Park Hospital (16 September 2008)