Skip to content
recurance

Non‑compliance with care plans and insufficient incident review

Closely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderate5 reports · 2016–2026No published response to an earlier report One-page brief (print or PDF)

Care Quality Commission received 5 coroners' reports about this hazard between 5 Apr 2016 and 15 Jan 2026.

They came from 5 different coroners in 5 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 4 times after the first warning.

A published response was found for 3 of the 4 earlier reports, stating 5 specific actions.

5
reports
5
different coroners
2016–2026
years
0.80
lowest link confidence

The story, report by report

Spacing grows with the time between reports.

  1. First warning

    Dorothy Imisson↗

    5 Apr 2016 · James Adeley · Preston and West Lancashire

    “(1) No appropriate care plan was developed by the District Nursing Service.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    No published response from Care Quality Commission was found for this report.

  2. 1 year 9 months later

    Raised again · 1st time

    Ronald Farrington↗

    22 Dec 2017 · Caroline Topping · Surrey

    “Failed to follow the advice of the tissue viability nurses as to turning and how to dress Mr [name redacted] sores”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Care Quality Commission responded, stating 2 specific actions.Response (PDF) ↗Response (PDF) ↗

    “We have improved our systems to identify long running adult safeguarding enquiries and take actions to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. In December 2016 15% of our adult safeguarding enquiries had been in progress for over 12 months. By December 2017 we had reduced this to 4%, despite the number of adult safeguarding enquiries we are undertaking having more than doubled over that period.”

    Stated timescale: December 2017

    “we have put in place a new auditing system with close support from the local quality development team from East Surrey, this has been developed over the past year and has been met with positive feedback from the local team. The”

    Web search (Tavily): No evidence found either way

    New platform for AsureQuality Auditing Services ↗
  3. 4 years later

    Raised again · 2nd time

    Rebecca Begg↗

    8 Dec 2021 · Dr Elizabeth Didcock · Nottinghamshire

    “Failure to monitor compliance with care plans, and a lack of robust incident”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Care Quality Commission responded.Response (PDF) ↗

  4. 2 years 2 months later

    Raised again · 3rd time

    Susan Bracegirdle↗

    2 Feb 2024 · Alison Mutch · Manchester South

    “The inquest heard evidence that because Mrs [name redacted] was in a care home setting the District Nurses were responsible for management of her pressure ulcers.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Care Quality Commission responded, stating 3 specific actions.Response (PDF) ↗Response (PDF) ↗

    “We have reviewed all our records and cannot find that we received a statutory notification for serious injury to Mrs [name redacted] in relation to the grade 3 pressure injury identified at the point it was identified in October 2022.”
    “The care home was asked to ensure pressure relieving processes were followed. However, the District Nurses did not share care plans with the care team on the basis that they were digital documents and were care plans for the use of District Nurses. Consequently, the care home management were not fully sighted, and joint care was more difficult to deliver increasing the risk of the pressure ulcers deteriorating.”

    1 more stated action in the Promises tab.

  5. 1 year 11 months later

    Raised again · 4th time

    Ronald Nelson↗

    15 Jan 2026 · Sarah Wood · Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire

    Closely relatedConfidence 0.90 · higha different coroner
    “There are concerns over the level of compliance of care plans.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Repeated from the earlier report:compliancecareplans

    Care Quality Commission responded.Response (PDF) ↗Response (PDF) ↗

  6. All reports to Care Quality Commission

Next

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.

  • Built with
  • NVIDIA Nemotron Nano, Super and Ultra
  • Nebius Token Factory inference
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B on Token Factory
  • Tavily follow-up web search
  • Postgres and pgvector search
  • Next.js site

Source: Prevention of Future Deaths reports and responses published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary at judiciary.uk. Crown copyright, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Data updated 26 Oct 2026.

A link shows that a similar concern was raised again, not why. It is not a finding about any organisation or person. Methodology and responsible use · Report an error