Lack of risk assessment documentation and updates
Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust received 3 coroners' reports about this hazard between 9 Jul 2015 and 12 Mar 2019.
They came from 3 different coroners. A similar concern was raised again 2 times after the first warning.
A published response was found for 1 of the 2 earlier reports, stating 0 specific actions.
The story, report by report
Spacing grows with the time between reports.
“No assessment of the risk factors in discharging the deceased was documented in the deceased's records.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust responded.Response (PDF) ↗
- 2 years 5 months laterClosely relatedConfidence 0.90 · higha different coroner
“In this case, critical risk assessments had not been updated and/or completed (falls, cot sides etc.) There were missed opportunities to re-assess.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ No published response from Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust was found for this report.
- 1 year 3 months laterClosely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderatea different coroner
“That the information provided by the Royal Oldham Hospital to the Home on 10 October 2018 was inaccurate in suggesting that Mrs [name redacted] was able to mobilise.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust responded.Response (PDF) ↗
- All reports to Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Each row is one judged link between an earlier and a later report. Open a row to read both quotes, found word for word in the originals.
2015 → 2017John Lea2 years 5 months after Toni Piel · different coronerClosely relatedConfidence 0.90 · high
Closely relatedConfidence 0.90 · highBoth reports highlight failures to perform or update required risk assessments for patients. The earlier case concerns discharge risk factor assessment, while the later case concerns ongoing assessments such as falls and cot side checks.
Toni Piel · 9 Jul 2015
“No assessment of the risk factors in discharging the deceased was documented in the deceased's records.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ John Lea · 28 Nov 2017
“In this case, critical risk assessments had not been updated and/or completed (falls, cot sides etc.) There were missed opportunities to re-assess.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ 2015 → 2019Marjorie Gartside3 years 8 months after Toni Piel · different coronerClosely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderate
Closely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderateBoth reports highlight deficiencies in the hospital's discharge process that could lead to unsafe patient release.
Toni Piel · 9 Jul 2015
“No assessment of the risk factors in discharging the deceased was documented in the deceased's records.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Marjorie Gartside · 12 Mar 2019
“That the information provided by the Royal Oldham Hospital to the Home on 10 October 2018 was inaccurate in suggesting that Mrs [name redacted] was able to mobilise.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗
No specific action could be extracted with a verified quote.
No published response from Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust was found for this report.
No specific action could be extracted with a verified quote.
- Each report's concerns were extracted by Nemotron 3 Nano on Nebius Token Factory, each with a quote copied from the report.
- Concerns from reports to Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust at least six months apart were compared by meaning (Qwen3 embeddings) and wording (TF-IDF).
- The closest pairs were judged by Nemotron 3 Super with reasoning on. Only identical or closely related, with confidence of at least 0.70, are shown.
- Every quote was checked by code as an exact substring of the original text. Names of staff and family are redacted, and the deceased are named by report title only.
| Link | Meaning | Wording | Judge | Coroner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 → 2017 | 0.70 | 0.00 | Closely related · 0.90 | different |
| 2015 → 2019 | 0.63 | 0.04 | Closely related · 0.80 | different |
Judge model: nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b. How Nemotron did the work · Full methodology.
Next
Other chains for Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.