Recurring concern

Unreliable communication of ambulance dispatch status and expectations

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 16 Dec 2013•Latest report 15 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of communication dedicated to ambulance dispatch and response status, including misleading dispatch wording, unclear response expectations and inadequate updates after a call has been placed.

Not included

  • Excludes delays caused solely by ambulance resource shortages, staffing or hospital handover congestion where communication reliability is not the identified unsafe condition.
  • Excludes failures in clinical, mental-health, social-care or other discharge and referral communications not specifically tied to ambulance dispatch status or expectations.
  • Excludes failures of emergency call assessment or clinical prioritisation where the concern is the decision itself rather than communicating dispatch status or expectations.
Reports
13

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
16

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
12

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

NHS England5
South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust3
Department of Health and Social Care2
East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust2
NEMS Community Benefit Services Limited2
NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board2
North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust2
Aneurin Bevan University LHB1
Brother and next of kin1
Counsel1
NHS Pathways1
Rye Hill Prison1
South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust1
Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Daniel Charles FORREST · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Daniel Charles Forrest, aged 85, suffered a witnessed fall outside his home on 30 September 2025 and later an unwitnessed fall at home on 1 October 2025. Ambulance attendance was delayed and subsequently cancelled before the second fall, after which he was taken to hospital and died from an unsurvivable head injury. The concerns were that callers were told an ambulance was being arranged and were not given reliable information about expected waiting times, potentially limiting informed decisions about waiting or escalating worsening symptoms.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inability to provide callers with estimated ambulance attendance times

    Wider context from the report

    “I heard that the NHS Pathways system tells call handlers to advise callers that an ambulance is being arranged. However I heard that within SECAMB category 3 and category 4 dispositions are validated by clinical staff before being added to the Dispatch queue for an Ambulance to be allocated. I heard that this was in line with National Guidance from The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives. Therefore, callers are not informed that no ambulance is being arranged at the time of their call. I also heard that the NHS Pathways does not allow callers to be advised of the estimated time that they may have to wait for ambulance attendance. The evidence was that SECAMB have requested that the wordings provided by NHS Pathways be altered so that there is provision to give further information to callers about how long they may wait for an ambulance to attend but this has previously been declined by NHS England. I consider that both of the above matters mean that patients cannot make informed decisions about whether they wait for the arrival of an ambulance or escalate worsening symptoms on the basis that they anticipate that an ambulance is being arranged so will be with them shortly when this may not be the case. ”

    Source location

    Daniel Charles FORREST · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to inform callers when no ambulance is being arranged

    Wider context from the report

    “I heard that the NHS Pathways system tells call handlers to advise callers that an ambulance is being arranged. However I heard that within SECAMB category 3 and category 4 dispositions are validated by clinical staff before being added to the Dispatch queue for an Ambulance to be allocated. I heard that this was in line with National Guidance from The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives. Therefore, callers are not informed that no ambulance is being arranged at the time of their call. I also heard that the NHS Pathways does not allow callers to be advised of the estimated time that they may have to wait for ambulance attendance. The evidence was that SECAMB have requested that the wordings provided by NHS Pathways be altered so that there is provision to give further information to callers about how long they may wait for an ambulance to attend but this has previously been declined by NHS England. I consider that both of the above matters mean that patients cannot make informed decisions about whether they wait for the arrival of an ambulance or escalate worsening symptoms on the basis that they anticipate that an ambulance is being arranged so will be with them shortly when this may not be the case. ”

    Source location

    Daniel Charles FORREST · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Work with ambulance services to develop standard scripts for situations where Ambulance Response Programme standards will not be met.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For 999 calls, all ambulance services should have in place call exit scripts and procedures for dealing with response delays when under operational pressure. NHS England has Resource Escalation Action Plan (REAP) levels which are used to manage operational pressures across ambulance services. NHS England supports a position that callers should be provided with sufficient information to make informed decisions, including whether an ambulance has been dispatched to the patient.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 August 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Operational information, including ambulance waiting times, falls outside the remit of NHS Pathways triage.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For the reasons provided above, operation information, such as wait times within emergency operations centres sits outside the remit of triage and is best placed to be dealt with locally by individual Ambulance Trusts.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 August 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Individual ambulance services are responsible for managing operational delays and associated caller information under local governance and procedures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Therefore, these circumstances are now managed locally, by the individual ambulance services, following their own internal governance and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 August 2026

    Open published response
  2. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Yunus Hoque · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Yunus Hoque, aged 13, became increasingly unwell with a viral infection and Group A streptococcal infection before suffering respiratory and cardiac arrest after a delayed ambulance response. The principal concern was that, when an ambulance response is significantly delayed beyond the time indicated to the caller, there was no follow-up communication to reassess the patient, inform the caller of the delay, or identify deterioration requiring a more urgent response.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of a follow-up communication system for significant unforeseen ambulance delays

    Wider context from the report

    “6. However, it is apparent that in circumstances where there is a significant delay over and above that indicated to the caller, there is no follow-up call or communication to indicate further delay, to confirm the status of the patient, or to suggest that alternative transport is required, if possible. Notwithstanding this, in a changing situation, a patient may deteriorate, moving from Category 2 to Category 1 and therefore requiring a more urgent response: as was apparent from the evidence at this inquest. But a patient, family member and / or carer who relies upon information already provided by the call handler, may continue to wait for an ambulance that they have been told will arrive in a given period of time, when in reality there is no likelihood of that ambulance arriving. At the same time, NWAS will be proceeding on the basis that they are dealing with a Category 2 when the case has now become a Category 1. ”

    Source location

    Yunus Hoque · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Explore SMS updates for patients awaiting an ambulance or further clinical assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Nevertheless, I can confirm that NWAS are currently exploring the use of SMS text messaging to patients who are waiting for an ambulance or a further clinical assessment from an NWAS clinician or external provider. This work is in the initial stages but will provide improved information to our callers whilst they await a response.”

    Source location

    Response from NWAS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Finite resources prevent NWAS from providing callback updates because this would reduce capacity to answer other 999 calls and provide essential information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Unfortunately, this does not mean that we are able to provide an exact time of arrival for an ambulance, due to constraints on demand and the requirement to dispatch ambulances to the most critical patients in order of need. The reality is, with the finite resources available to the Trust, if NWAS were to carry out call-backs to patients to update them on unexpected changes to their estimated time of arrival, it would reduce our capacity to answer 999 calls for other patients and to provide essential information to callers.”

    Source location

    Response from NWAS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 March 2026

    Open published response
  3. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Adam Ali Hussain · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Adam Ali Hussain died on 16 May 2025 at Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, from complicated appendicitis with perforation, peritonitis, severe intra-abdominal sepsis and multiple organ failure. The report identifies missed opportunities to recognise worsening illness and sepsis and to arrange face-to-face assessment, particularly on 14 May 2025. Concerns include unreliable handling and transfer of clinical information, unclear Category 3 ambulance-call criteria, and inadequate communication with families.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to inform waiting families when an ambulance will not be sent

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Families, waiting for an ambulance response, following a clinical assessment by a 111 clinical adviser are not told by EMAS that an ambulance will not be sent ”

    Source location

    Adam Ali Hussain · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Introduce a standardised opening statement explaining NEMS’s role and that an ambulance may not be sent.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NEMS has introduced a standardised opening statement:”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham Emergency Medical Service
    Page 4 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Audit call recordings for compliance with the standardised opening statement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Audit of call recordings to ensure compliance.”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham Emergency Medical Service
    Page 4 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Submit a supplier development request for automated text notifications when calls are transferred through the Interoperability Toolkit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The current CAD system does not provide an automatic mechanism for notifying callers in these circumstances. To address this, EMAS has submitted a development request to the system supplier (MIS). The planned enhancement will ensure that, when a call is transferred through the Interoperability Toolkit (ITK), the caller receives a text message confirming the status of their request. The proposed message will be as follows:”

    Source location

    Response from East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement automated text notifications confirming request status when calls are transferred through the Interoperability Toolkit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The current CAD system does not provide an automatic mechanism for notifying callers in these circumstances. To address this, EMAS has submitted a development request to the system supplier (MIS). The planned enhancement will ensure that, when a call is transferred through the Interoperability Toolkit (ITK), the caller receives a text message confirming the status of their request. The proposed message will be as follows:”

    Source location

    Response from East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Concerns other than concern three are better addressed by EMAS, NEMS and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We consider that the third concern listed above falls within NHS England’s remit and we have endeavoured to address this concern below. The remaining concerns would be better addressed by EMAS, NEMS and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board (ICB), who have also been sent your Report.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    NHS England cannot comment on whether families were told an ambulance would not be sent because other services spoke to the patient.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are unable to comment on the concern that families are not informed that an ambulance is not being sent as it was NHS 111 and the Nottingham Emergency Medical Service (commissioned by NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB) who spoke to the patient, rather than the ambulance service. The ICB will therefore be best placed to address any concerns on their exit scripts.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Integrated Care Board is best placed to address concerns about the exit scripts informing families whether an ambulance will be sent.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are unable to comment on the concern that families are not informed that an ambulance is not being sent as it was NHS 111 and the Nottingham Emergency Medical Service (commissioned by NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB) who spoke to the patient, rather than the ambulance service. The ICB will therefore be best placed to address any concerns on their exit scripts.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response
  4. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Jake Kieran Hartwright · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Jake Kieran Hartwright developed severe illness associated with bowel ischaemia and had a cardiac arrest at home on 16 January 2025. He died at Queens Medical Centre in the early hours of 17 January 2025 from multiple organ failure secondary to extensive bowel ischaemia. The report identified serious issues in the urgent care pathway, including missed opportunities to arrange a Category 2 ambulance and problems with clinical information transfer and management of Category 3 calls.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to inform waiting families that an ambulance will be sent

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Families, waiting for an ambulance response, following a clinical assessment by a 111 clinical adviser are not told by EMAS that an ambulance will be sent ”

    Source location

    Jake Kieran Hartwright · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Use a standardised opening statement to explain NEMS involvement and ambulance arrangements to callers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NEMS has introduced a standardised opening statement:”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham Emergency Medical Service
    Page 5 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Audit call recordings for compliance with the standardised opening statement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Audit of call recordings to ensure compliance.”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham Emergency Medical Service
    Page 5 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Submit a development request to the CAD supplier for caller text notifications when calls are transferred through the Interoperability Toolkit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The current CAD system does not provide an automatic mechanism for notifying callers in these circumstances. To address this, the Trust has submitted a development request to the system supplier (MIS). The planned enhancement will ensure that, when a call is transferred through the Interoperability Toolkit (ITK), the caller receives a text message confirming the status of their request. The proposed message will be as follows:”

    Source location

    Response from East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Introduce CAD functionality that texts callers confirming the status of requests transferred through the Interoperability Toolkit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The current CAD system does not provide an automatic mechanism for notifying callers in these circumstances. To address this, the Trust has submitted a development request to the system supplier (MIS). The planned enhancement will ensure that, when a call is transferred through the Interoperability Toolkit (ITK), the caller receives a text message confirming the status of their request. The proposed message will be as follows:”

    Source location

    Response from East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The response cannot comment on whether families were informed because NHS 111 and NEMS, rather than the ambulance service, spoke to the patient.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are unable to comment on the concern that families are not informed that an ambulance is not being sent as it was NHS 111 and the Nottingham Emergency Medical Service (commissioned by NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB) who spoke to the patient, rather than the ambulance service. The ICB will therefore be best placed to address any concerns on their exit scripts.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The ICB is best placed to address concerns about the wording of exit scripts informing families whether an ambulance will be sent.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are unable to comment on the concern that families are not informed that an ambulance is not being sent as it was NHS 111 and the Nottingham Emergency Medical Service (commissioned by NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB) who spoke to the patient, rather than the ambulance service. The ICB will therefore be best placed to address any concerns on their exit scripts.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The current CAD system cannot automatically notify families when an ambulance will not be sent, pending supplier development of this functionality.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. Families awaiting an ambulance following a 111 clinical assessment are not informed by EMAS if an ambulance will not be sent.”

    Source location

    Response from East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 January 2026

    Open published response
  5. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Simon Boyd · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Simon Boyd, who had reported dizziness, lethargy, sweating and later breathlessness, was found unresponsive at home on 1 June 2024 after an ambulance response was cancelled and a routine same-day home visit was arranged. Attempts to revive him were unsuccessful, and the inquest recorded myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease and hypertension. Concerns included ambulance response times not meeting national targets, potentially misleading NHS Pathways wording about ambulance dispatch, and cancellation of an ambulance response without first discussing this with the caller.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Use of NHS Pathways call-handler script wording that misleadingly implies ambulance dispatch

    Wider context from the report

    “1. I am concerned that the current wording of some of the script used by Call Handlers under NHS Pathways creates an impression that an ambulance has been dispatched to a caller at a point when this is, in fact, not the case. Phrases such as ‘An emergency ambulance has been arranged’, ‘we will be with you as soon as possible, as soon as an ambulance is available’ and ‘if you can ask for someone to meet and direct the vehicle and shut any dogs away if there are any’ potentially give a misleading impression as to ambulance dispatch having occurred, which could conceivably deter a caller from taking steps which might realistically result in them obtaining faster help. ”

    Source location

    Simon Boyd · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Cancellation of ambulance responses without discussion with callers

    Wider context from the report

    “2. A further matter of concern arises from the potential under the NHS Pathways paradigm for an ambulance response to be cancelled without this first being discussed with the person who has felt it necessary to dial 999 and request an ambulance in the first place. ”

    Source location

    Simon Boyd · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Local ambulance providers determine Category 3 and 4 exit-script wording rather than NHS England determining it nationally.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In order to support ambulance providers to manage their available resources, NHS England has issued a national directive, requiring providers to undertake clinical validation of Category 3 and Category 4 ambulance responses within both NHS 111 and 999 services. This involves validation of the disposition by a clinician (arranged locally), which can result in a different disposition being subsequently reached. The information captured in NHS Pathways may allow a clinician to re-categorise the call without direct contact with the patient. The Ambulance Trust’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, rather than NHS Pathways, is used to manage the validation process. It is a requirement that the CAD must be able to provide appropriate exit scripts for Category 3 / Category 4 codes or dispositions. The wording of the exit scripts is for local determination.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 4 · response
    Published 6 November 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    NHS England is responsible for addressing concerns about the NHS Pathways script wording used by call handlers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Your report raises concerns about ambulance response times and the script used by call handlers. In preparing this response, my officials have made enquiries with NHS England to ensure we adequately address your concerns. I understand NHS England are writing to you regarding the specific concerns you have raised on the current wording used in the NHS Pathways script by call handlers.”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 1 · response
    Published 6 November 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Ambulance validation and cancellation fall outside NHS Pathways’ remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Simon was subsequently spoken to by a clinician within the Greater Manchester Clinical Assessment Service, who would have cancelled the ambulance. This validation and cancellation of an ambulance is not within the remit of the NHS Pathways system, and no data is provided back to NHS Pathways or the provider as to the changing of a disposition. Should the Coroner wish to investigate this further, he would be best placed contacting the Greater Manchester Clinical Assessment Service.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 4 · response
    Published 6 November 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Greater Manchester Clinical Assessment Service is responsible for investigating the ambulance validation and cancellation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Simon was subsequently spoken to by a clinician within the Greater Manchester Clinical Assessment Service, who would have cancelled the ambulance. This validation and cancellation of an ambulance is not within the remit of the NHS Pathways system, and no data is provided back to NHS Pathways or the provider as to the changing of a disposition. Should the Coroner wish to investigate this further, he would be best placed contacting the Greater Manchester Clinical Assessment Service.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 4 · response
    Published 6 November 2024

    Open published response
  6. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Jack Goodwin · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Jack Goodwin experienced chest pains on 15 December 2017 and suffered a cardiac arrest after a delay in receiving emergency medical assistance, resulting in a hypoxic brain injury. He later developed significant cognitive impairment and died at home on 15 January 2020 from complications arising from the cardiac arrest and prolonged downtime. Concerns related to ambulance call-handling scripts, including the lack of guidance about self-transport, the need for an acute hospital, and reassessment if the patient deteriorated.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the call-handling script to support discussion of self-transport or provide a realistic ambulance-arrival timescale

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The inquest heard that at the time of the calls to NWAS on 15th December 2017 they were very busy. The script used by the call handler allowed them to indicate that they were busy. However it did not allow for any suggestion or discussion about whether he would be better to make his own way there or allow for the provision by the call handler of a realistic timescale for the ambulance arriving. As a consequence it was difficult for the call maker to make an assessment of the best course of action to ensure that Mr Goodwin received medical attention at the earliest opportunity. ”

    Source location

    Jack Goodwin · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Explore adding advice to ambulance call scripts to direct callers to the nearest hospital with an emergency department when appropriate.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “999 calls to the ambulance service can be answered anywhere in the country so we cannot rely on local knowledge; call handlers do not have immediate access to which is the nearest emergency department in those situations where a caller advises that the patient would make their own way to hospital. In appropriate circumstances, NHS E/I consider that advising the caller that they should make their way to the nearest emergency department, noting that not all hospitals have emergency departments, would be a useful addition to the script callers receive. This will be explored through the Ambulance Transformation Forum.”

    Source location

    2021-0036-Response-from-NHS-England_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 February 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Providing an accurate ambulance arrival time is impracticable because lower-priority responses may be diverted to higher-priority incidents.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All ambulance services are responsible for having in place scripts and procedures for dealing with delays in responding when under operational pressure. It is not possible in practice to offer an accurate arrival time for any given patient, but ambulance services will know an approximate current waiting time for that category of patient. NHS E/I support a position that callers should be provided with sufficient information to make informed decisions if an ambulance has not been despatched to the patient.”

    Source location

    2021-0036-Response-from-NHS-England_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 February 2021

    Open published response
  7. Gwent

    AI-generated summary

    Alyn Rees · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Alyn Rees became acutely unwell on 3 December 2019, experienced breathing difficulties, deteriorated into cardiac arrest, and died after paramedics were unable to revive him. Concerns were raised about the approximately two-hour wait for an emergency ambulance, the lack of advice about the expected arrival time, the absence of an indicated response time for an Amber 1 call, and delays transferring patients into hospital care that prevented ambulances from being released.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of an indicated expected response time for Amber 1 calls

    Wider context from the report

    “However, the family raised concerns, with which I agreed, that 2 hours is a long time to wait for an emergency ambulance. At no time were the family advised of the expected time of arrival and potentially, if they had been aware of this, they may have contacted earlier the local GP. The report did not indicate what the expected response time for an Amber 1 call should be. I was advised that on this occasion there were significant delays (up to 3 hours) transferring patients into the care of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board Hospitals. This is also of significant concern as it prevented emergency ambulances being released. ”

    Source location

    Alyn Rees · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to advise callers of the expected emergency ambulance arrival time

    Wider context from the report

    “However, the family raised concerns, with which I agreed, that 2 hours is a long time to wait for an emergency ambulance. At no time were the family advised of the expected time of arrival and potentially, if they had been aware of this, they may have contacted earlier the local GP. The report did not indicate what the expected response time for an Amber 1 call should be. I was advised that on this occasion there were significant delays (up to 3 hours) transferring patients into the care of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board Hospitals. This is also of significant concern as it prevented emergency ambulances being released. ”

    Source location

    Alyn Rees · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Joan Margaret McIndoe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Joan Margaret McIndoe was found unresponsive in the shower at her retirement complex after an alarm was activated and the call centre was unable to contact her. The ambulance call was categorised as a Category 4 response, and concerns were raised about the automatic categorisation of such calls and the lack of clarity about updates after a call centre contacts the ambulance service, particularly while the alarm continued to activate.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of clarity about expectations for updates after call-centre calls to the ambulance service

    Wider context from the report

    “2. During the course of the inquest evidence was given that there is a lack of clarity about expectations for updates once a call has been placed by a call centre to the ambulance service. As a result there is no way of understanding if the position is evolving for example as in this case where the alarm kept going off and there was still no response from Mrs McIndoe. ”

    Source location

    Joan Margaret McIndoe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The AACE cannot mandate or instruct ambulance services, limiting its authority to require implementation of responsive safety changes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The AACE provides central support and co-ordination to ambulance services to assist with implementation of national policy and the improvement of patient care. Although the AACE is not constituted to mandate or instruct ambulance services, it facilitates and enables the development of good practice. This includes consideration of concerns identified by coroners, where the AACE’s National Ambulance Medical Directors Group will discuss and disseminate learning from Prevention of Future Deaths reports. The concerns in your report have been brought to the attention of the AACE.”

    Source location

    2020-0138-Response-from-Dept-for-Health-and-Social-Care_Redacted.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 30 September 2020

    Open published response
  9. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    John SCOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    John SCOTT’s death was investigated and the inquest concluded that he died from natural causes. The concerns raised related to emergency call handling, including support for callers who are alone, ambulance estimated arrival times, whether lone callers could re-contact the service if they became unresponsive, and questions about symptoms that might indicate an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to explain the likely ambulance timing and estimated time of arrival

    Wider context from the report

    “At the end of the call when the Pathways aspect of the call is ended why do you not explain to the person ringing you, about the likely timing of the ambulance at that stage and therefore, the estimated time of arrival. If at that stage the estimated time of arrival is two hours or more, why do you not suggest to the patient that they may like to make arrangements to get themselves to hospital without an ambulance? ”

    Source location

    John SCOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Deploy a call-handler script advising callers of the ambulance’s estimated arrival timeframe to support informed decisions about waiting or travelling to hospital safely.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Within NHS Pathway release 17 which is being deployed from 5th May 2019 call handlers will be provided with a script to advise callers that an ambulance aims to be with you within x minutes or hours. This was introduced to enable patients to make an informed decision as to whether to wait for that ambulance or, where safe, make their own way to hospital.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-NHS-Digital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The service cannot provide an ambulance arrival timeframe because multiple factors determine when a particular ambulance resource will arrive.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Paragraph two - We cannot provide a timeframe as there are so many factors involved in determining when an ambulance resource will arrive with any particular patient. We do have a “surge script” which we use when calls could potentially wait longer than the specified timeframe set by the category of call (eg. category 3 – 2 hours). I attach a copy of the script.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-South-East-Coast-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Exact ambulance arrival times can only be provided by South East Coast Ambulance Service using its live operational information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “However, exact times cannot be given by NHS Pathways as this information can only be provided by South East Coast Ambulance Service based on their live operational position and so NHS Pathways cannot comment further on this point.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-NHS-Digital
    Page 4 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response
  10. Northamptonshire

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew Crane · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Andrew Crane suffered a cardiac arrest in his prison cell on 16 November 2016 and died despite resuscitation efforts. The report identified concerns about the response to his complaint of chest pain, including a lack of clarity about when a Code Blue should be called, and the failure to pass information about his lack of breathing and CPR to the ambulance service, which would have changed the response priority.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to pass updated patient condition information to the ambulance service

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) A Code Blue was called when Mr Crane collapsed, and at this stage an ambulance was called. After this call, it became clear that Mr Crane was not breathing and CPR was commenced, but this further information was not passed to the ambulance service. This information would have changed the priority of the ambulance response. ”

    Source location

    Andrew Crane · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026