Recurring concern

Unreliable EMIS clinical information and prescribing functions

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 16 Oct 2015•Latest report 19 Aug 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of explicitly identified EMIS functions that affect safe clinical information access or use, including consultation-list updating, access to relevant GP data and availability of appropriate prescribing choices.

Not included

  • Excludes generic electronic-record or prescribing-system deficiencies where EMIS is not explicitly identified.
  • Excludes failures of clinical decision-making, communication or care delivery that are not caused by an EMIS function.
  • Excludes non-safety-related administrative or technical problems in EMIS.
  • Excludes failures in other named information systems unless the report explicitly links them to the same EMIS concern.
Reports
7

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
10

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
23

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.

Egton Medical Information Systems Limited3
NHS England3
Ashfield Surgery1
Derbyshire County Council1
Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust1
EMIS Group1
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency1
NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board1
North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust1
South West Yorkshire Partnership Teaching NHS Foundation 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. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Venetia Clarissa Pierce · 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

    Venetia Clarissa Pierce, described as an elderly frail lady with recurrent urinary infections, was prescribed nitrofurantoin prophylactically in February 2024 and died in hospital on 30 December 2024. The inquest recorded nitrofurantoin-induced pneumonitis as the medical cause of death, with frailty contributing. Concerns included the absence of an MHRA safety alert on the surgery’s EMIS system and limited awareness among clinicians of the potential for pulmonary damage and respiratory failure from nitrofurantoin in elderly patients.

    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 surgery EMIS system to display MHRA nitrofurantoin safety alerts

    Wider context from the report

    “a. The MHRA issued a drug safety alert regarding the risks of pulmonary and hepatic adverse drug reactions in relation to nitrofurantoin in April 2023. However, no MHRA safety alert appeared on the surgery EMIS system when the drug was prescribed to Mrs Pierce. The court heard that the safety alert only arises when patients have a pre-existing pulmonary disease which Mrs Pierce did not have. ”

    Source location

    Venetia Clarissa Pierce · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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

    Existing EMIS Web functionality is considered sufficient to mitigate the specific MHRA Nitrofurantoin risk; no further software development is required.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In this instance, based on the information provided in the Report, and our subsequent review, we do not believe there are any software developments beyond the existing functionality in the System that are required to mitigate the specific risk raised in the Report.”

    Source location

    Response from EMIS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 August 2025

    Open published response
  2. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Juanita Boate Nti · 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

    Juanita Boate Nti had complex congenital diseases and was receiving palliative care at home. She received twenty times the intended morphine dose after the prescription and symptom control plan failed to clearly specify the volume, and the prescription contained two different concentrations. She suffered respiratory arrest and died following an accidental morphine overdose, with concerns also identified about the EMIS prescribing system not offering the relevant morphine strength.

    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

    Unavailability of an appropriate morphine strength as a prescribing choice on EMIS

    Wider context from the report

    “The hospital originally prescribed 120 micrograms of morphine sulphate 6 hourly and dispensed 100 micrograms per ml solution, but the strength and volume to be administered were not clearly recorded on the plan sent to the GP. The mother requested her GP by telephone to continue the prescription. The GP found only one strength of morphine on the EMIS prescription system, 10mg/5ml, confirmed to be the lowest strength available in the British National Formulary. He wrote this in the first line of the prescription and then confusingly further added “100 micrograms per ml solution, 120 micrograms 6hrly”. The pharmacist did not notice that the second line contained a different concentration and dispensed the higher dose without stipulating the volume to be administered. The baby received 3mg instead of the intended 150 micrograms. Whilst both GP and pharmacist made errors in clinical practice and did not contact each other, the error would not have occurred had another strength of morphine been a choice on EMIS. EMIS have been notified and placed the special prescription on its drug data base. The local commissioning group is conducting a project to identify other special prescriptions that are not on EMIS that may pose a similar risk to safety. ”

    Source location

    Juanita Boate Nti · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Matthew William Thomas Power · 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

    Matthew William Thomas Power, a 33-year-old man living in supported accommodation, died at a house in Redhill after taking illicit and prescribed drugs over the previous 36 hours; the medical cause of death was recorded as mixed drug toxicity. The concerns identified related to the EMIS prescribing system, including cancelled prescriptions remaining pending, prescriptions being grouped in a way that obscured prescribing history, and difficulty determining what had been prescribed and issued.

    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 EMIS prescription records to clearly display the chronology of issued prescriptions

    Wider context from the report

    “2. I heard evidence that the EMIS system appears to group prescriptions into the amount prescribed rather than simply recording when a prescription is issued. In this case there were different entries grouped as 100 tablets, 50 tablets, 30 tablets, and 24 tablets. Consequently, it was not clear to the duty doctor that the most recent prescriptions for co-codamol had been for a shorter course of only █ tablets and as a result █ tablets of co-codamol were prescribed and issued. ”

    Source location

    Matthew William Thomas Power · 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

    Difficulty interrogating EMIS prescribing records to establish what was prescribed, issued and when

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Evidence was given by the GP practice that to interrogate the EMIS system in order to ascertain what had actually been prescribed, issued and when, was a challenging task; it had taken 3 GPs and the in-house pharmacist to conduct the review. ”

    Source location

    Matthew William Thomas Power · 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

    Provide medication views that display prescriptions chronologically by last issue date and allow clinicians to configure grouping.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Medications are grouped within the System with the following “view” options: (i) Acute/Repeat; (ii) EMIS Drug Group; (iii) Problem Orientated View; (iv) Acute/Repeat (Alphabetical); or (v) no grouping (as shown in the dropdown option in Fig 2). As a default, medications are displayed as Acute/Repeat, which will show medications in chronological order of date last issued. An individual user of the System can choose which view to use.”

    Source location

    Response from EMIS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 July 2023

    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

    Provide Drug History functionality showing medication commencement, modification, ending, and issue-request events.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The System has a Drug History function (within the Medication module) which allows users to view the timeline of any actions performed against each medication entry within the patient record by right-clicking on the relevant medication and choosing “Drug History” (as shown in Fig 3). This includes dates and times a course was commenced, modified, or ended, as well as when requests for medication issues were placed (shown below in Fig 4).”

    Source location

    Response from EMIS
    Page 3 · response
    Published 3 July 2023

    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

    Existing EMIS Web functionality is sufficient to mitigate the identified medication-management risks, so no software developments are required.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Based upon the information provided in the Report and our subsequent review, we do not believe there are any software developments that are required in order to mitigate risks relating to this case beyond the”

    Source location

    Response from EMIS
    Page 4 · response
    Published 3 July 2023

    Open published response
  4. Cumbria

    AI-generated summary

    Darran Busby · 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

    Darran Busby was at home with his family on 14 August 2021 and ended his life. Before his death, he had undergone an MRI scan after complaining of headaches, but the result was never reviewed by a clinician. The report raised concerns that weaknesses in the electronic systems could allow radiology results requiring urgent follow-up to be filed without clinical review, potentially creating a risk of future deaths.

    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 result-filing function to prevent multiple-click filing of subsequent results without clinician review

    Wider context from the report

    “After it became apparent that the result of Mr Busby's MRI scan had not been reviewed by a clinician, a consultant employed by North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust ('the Trust') undertook an investigation. He noted that the Trust use EMIS as an electronic patient record. He explained that the Trust used a separate system called ICE to gather the results of tests or scans. ICE is capable of linking to EMIS to input results into the EMIS system. Once a test result has been linked to a patient in EMIS the result enters the EMIS record as a provisional result pending review, and is placed on a work list. The consultant or a deputy then reviews the result, files it with or without comment and records any actions taken. EMIS provides two options: 'file no comment' and 'file and comment'. Results of blood tests which are undertaken to monitor treatment and which are normal may be filed without comment. If there is an abnormality flagged, however, EMIS will default to the file with comment dialogue box even if file no comment is selected. This acts as a safeguard against missing a significant finding. Unfortunately, there is no flag attached in the ICE system for abnormal radiology results, and so no failsafe exists for defaulting to a 'file and comment' if a significant positive or negative finding is reported. In the course of investigating what occurred in relation to Mr Busby's MRI scan, it was determined that clicking more than once on the 'file no comment' button will result in the displayed result being filed, but will also result in filing of the next in the list if that result has no flag indicating the result is abnormal. Thus if a radiology result lies below a normal blood result and a clinician inadvertently double clicks to file the first result, the radiology result is also filed without comment and without the result being displayed. Furthermore, multiple clicks up to 6 (and perhaps even beyond) will lead to multiple filings. In the result it is possible that a clinician inadvertently clicking 'file no comment' more than once on one result would cause results which require urgent follow up being filed without a clinician being involved. I am concerned that this might lead to lost opportunities to treat patients whose scans reveal, for instance, early malignancies. It might also mean that scans which reveal the need for urgent action will be overlooked. I am therefore concerned that future deaths will occur. I was impressed by the candour of the report provided to me and the efforts that the Trust have already taken to resolve this issue. However I noted that the evidence I received was that "In order to fix this issue it is likely it will require action by the publishers of EMIS to prevent accidental filing of results. To attempt to mitigate this issue whilst a permanent fix is sought I have worked with colleagues from Pathology and Radiology to attempt to have all radiology results (where the greatest risk lies) flagged within the ICE system as abnormal, so that any attempt to file the result prompts via the file and comment dialogue box. Unfortunately at the time of writing this letter the flag, which is triggered in ICE for any radiology report originating within Cumbria Neuroscience, does not carry through to EMIS and we continue to seek a local solution to mitigate this newly identified risk." In the circumstances I have concluded that it is necessary for action to be taken to prevent future deaths. ”

    Source location

    Darran Busby · 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

    Test a workable EMIS solution and continue collaborating with EMIS on system fixes, user communication and escalation of identified risks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust’s Digital Services has since engaged with EMIS in support of testing a workable solution, and have made available all resources necessary to support the work on this issue.”

    Source location

    2022-0011-Response-from-North-Cumbria-Integrated-Care_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 January 2022

    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

    Return the Cockermouth Hospital community ward to the ICE Order Comms system after assessing the affected functionality.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The ward at Cockermouth Hospital reverted back to using the ICE Order Comms system (ICE was outlined in the Trust’s evidence to the inquest), following an initial assessment of the functionality. Whilst this option”

    Source location

    2022-0011-Response-from-North-Cumbria-Integrated-Care_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 January 2022

    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

    Increase Neurology team vigilance when reviewing results and stop using “file no comment” in favour of “File and Comment” to require clinician review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the interim Dr ████████ and the Neurology team have increased vigilance when reviewing results, and have accepted the key recommendation from the Digital Services to stop using the “file no Comment” button in favour of the “File and Comment” button. This approach will introduce a direct action by the clinician that means a result cannot be filed inadvertently as a pop box always appears. This introduces extra mouse clicks and is therefore more time consuming but does provide the assurance that the results cannot be filed without appropriate review until a more robust system based solution is in place.”

    Source location

    2022-0011-Response-from-North-Cumbria-Integrated-Care_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 January 2022

    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 a separate Rad Alert system that emails referrers about significant radiology findings and escalates unacknowledged alerts to alternative clinicians.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst this information has been shared with EMIS to inform their consideration of solutions to this issue the Trust has sought other appropriate remedies. The Trust is implementing a Rad Alert system, which will operate separately, though alongside ICE and upon recognising an alert code in a radiology report it will email the referring consultant/GP to advise them of a significant radiology finding. In the event the email is not acknowledged within a given time period (variable according to the severity of the alert) the system will alert the rad alert admin in order that alternate clinicians can be emailed. This should prevent a recurrence of this incident regardless of whether the report is being reviewed on EMIS or on ICE as it is a separate way of highlighting the significance of the report to the referrer. It is anticipated that the RAD system will be implemented in April 2022.”

    Source location

    2022-0011-Response-from-North-Cumbria-Integrated-Care_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 January 2022

    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

    Notify Primary Care colleagues using EMIS about the risk and required precautions through the CCG Chief Clinical Information Officer.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust has notified colleagues in Primary Care as users of EMIS through discussion with the CCG Chief Clinical Information Officer, to minimise any similar adverse action within GP provision.”

    Source location

    2022-0011-Response-from-North-Cumbria-Integrated-Care_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 January 2022

    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

    Existing EMIS Web failsafes, combined with appropriate user diligence, are considered sufficient to prevent inadvertent filing of multiple results.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to any inadvertent filing activity, EMIS believe that there are sufficient failsafe measures within the system, alongside appropriate diligence from the user, to prevent such occurrence. It must be the responsibility of the clinician to review, file and subsequently archive results at a speed and with a level of diligence that fits the clinical nature of the results and the patient involved.”

    Source location

    2022-0011-Response-from-EMIS_Published
    Page 5 · response
    Published 20 January 2022

    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

    Clinicians are responsible for reviewing, filing and archiving results at a speed and diligence appropriate to their clinical nature and patient context.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to any inadvertent filing activity, EMIS believe that there are sufficient failsafe measures within the system, alongside appropriate diligence from the user, to prevent such occurrence. It must be the responsibility of the clinician to review, file and subsequently archive results at a speed and with a level of diligence that fits the clinical nature of the results and the patient involved.”

    Source location

    2022-0011-Response-from-EMIS_Published
    Page 5 · response
    Published 20 January 2022

    Open published response
  5. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Pardeep Singh PLAHE · 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

    Pardeep Singh Plahe died at Queen Elizabeth Hospital on 12 August 2020 after inflicting a catastrophic injury to his neck with a decorative samurai sword. He had been increasingly concerned about a physical health complaint and had a scheduled GP telephone consultation that was missed because of a technical problem with the EMIS system. The report raised concerns that consultation lists could fail to update, creating a risk that urgent telephone consultations might be missed, and that the identified mitigation depended on practitioners remembering to log out and back in to the system.

    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 EMIS consultation-list mitigation to reliably ensure practitioner logout and re-login

    Wider context from the report

    “1. On the 10th August at 17:30, hours before he inflicted the fatal wound to his neck, Mr. Plahe had a telephone consultation scheduled with his GP at the Ashfield Surgery. The appointment had been booked by his sister that afternoon. Due to a technical issue with the EMIS system the consultation list of the GP due to speak to Mr. Plahe did not update so he did not realise the appointment had been added to his list and did not call Mr. Plahe. Practitioners at the surgery had realised that the system was intermittently not updating consultation lists on or around the 30th July 2020 and had raised the issue with EMIS on the 4th August 2020. To date a solution to correct this intermittent problem has not been identified. Evidence was given at inquest that it does not just affect the Ashfield Surgery but has occurred at other surgeries across the country. 2. Particularly for telephone consultations (where there will not be a patient physically present in the surgery to query why they have not been seen), the fact that the consultation lists do not always update creates a risk to life as a consultation could be missed for a patient with a medical emergency. 3. It is not known whether all GP Surgeries using EMIS have raised an alert that this error can occur. 4. To mitigate the risk of missing appointments the Ashfield Surgery has identified that if practitioners log out of the EMIS system and then log back on the consultation list will update. Therefore, all practitioners are advised to log out and log back in before completing their consultation lists. However, on one occasion since Mr. Plahe's death a locum GP carrying out a list at the surgery did not know to do this and missed an appointment. 5. The methods of mitigating this risk are vulnerable to human error if the practitioner is unaware of the need to log out of EMIS and log back in or if they forget to do so. ”

    Source location

    Pardeep Singh PLAHE · 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 of EMIS consultation lists to update reliably

    Wider context from the report

    “1. On the 10th August at 17:30, hours before he inflicted the fatal wound to his neck, Mr. Plahe had a telephone consultation scheduled with his GP at the Ashfield Surgery. The appointment had been booked by his sister that afternoon. Due to a technical issue with the EMIS system the consultation list of the GP due to speak to Mr. Plahe did not update so he did not realise the appointment had been added to his list and did not call Mr. Plahe. Practitioners at the surgery had realised that the system was intermittently not updating consultation lists on or around the 30th July 2020 and had raised the issue with EMIS on the 4th August 2020. To date a solution to correct this intermittent problem has not been identified. Evidence was given at inquest that it does not just affect the Ashfield Surgery but has occurred at other surgeries across the country. 2. Particularly for telephone consultations (where there will not be a patient physically present in the surgery to query why they have not been seen), the fact that the consultation lists do not always update creates a risk to life as a consultation could be missed for a patient with a medical emergency. 3. It is not known whether all GP Surgeries using EMIS have raised an alert that this error can occur. 4. To mitigate the risk of missing appointments the Ashfield Surgery has identified that if practitioners log out of the EMIS system and then log back on the consultation list will update. Therefore, all practitioners are advised to log out and log back in before completing their consultation lists. However, on one occasion since Mr. Plahe's death a locum GP carrying out a list at the surgery did not know to do this and missed an appointment. 5. The methods of mitigating this risk are vulnerable to human error if the practitioner is unaware of the need to log out of EMIS and log back in or if they forget to do so. ”

    Source location

    Pardeep Singh PLAHE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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 ensure that all EMIS-using GP surgeries are alerted to the consultation-list error

    Wider context from the report

    “1. On the 10th August at 17:30, hours before he inflicted the fatal wound to his neck, Mr. Plahe had a telephone consultation scheduled with his GP at the Ashfield Surgery. The appointment had been booked by his sister that afternoon. Due to a technical issue with the EMIS system the consultation list of the GP due to speak to Mr. Plahe did not update so he did not realise the appointment had been added to his list and did not call Mr. Plahe. Practitioners at the surgery had realised that the system was intermittently not updating consultation lists on or around the 30th July 2020 and had raised the issue with EMIS on the 4th August 2020. To date a solution to correct this intermittent problem has not been identified. Evidence was given at inquest that it does not just affect the Ashfield Surgery but has occurred at other surgeries across the country. 2. Particularly for telephone consultations (where there will not be a patient physically present in the surgery to query why they have not been seen), the fact that the consultation lists do not always update creates a risk to life as a consultation could be missed for a patient with a medical emergency. 3. It is not known whether all GP Surgeries using EMIS have raised an alert that this error can occur. 4. To mitigate the risk of missing appointments the Ashfield Surgery has identified that if practitioners log out of the EMIS system and then log back on the consultation list will update. Therefore, all practitioners are advised to log out and log back in before completing their consultation lists. However, on one occasion since Mr. Plahe's death a locum GP carrying out a list at the surgery did not know to do this and missed an appointment. 5. The methods of mitigating this risk are vulnerable to human error if the practitioner is unaware of the need to log out of EMIS and log back in or if they forget to do so. ”

    Source location

    Pardeep Singh PLAHE · 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

    Update the induction pack with EMIS appointment-screen guidance and disseminate it to new staff, nursing staff, locums and relevant Primary Care Networks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I have enclosed our Induction Pack, which Page 4 highlights the issues with EMIS and the steps that we take at Ashfield Surgery to address this. This is to ensure that all new members of staff are aware of this. We have also discussed this with our nursing staff and our long-term locums. This information has also been shared with our Primary Care Networks that use EMIS currently, following the Coroners case.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-Ashfield-Surgery-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Use manual log-off and log-on refreshing as a workaround to identify newly added appointments and prevent missed appointments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Outcome Manually need to log on and off as refresh the screening isn’t reliable to ensure appointments not missed.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-Ashfield-Surgery-Redacted
    Page 22 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Update and disseminate appointment-refresh self-help guidance through the customer portal and EMIS Web information feed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• A user-facing article has been posted on the EMIS Customer portal to ensure they know to mitigate the risk and is available for self-help (KB0064144) to all customers: “Why isn’t my Appointment Book refreshing?” The article was originally published before this incident (07/02/2020) and updated further on 22/12/2020.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-EMIS-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Issue Safety Advisory Notice SAN 2021-005 to GP Practices and Clinical Services about the appointment-refresh risk and required actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2. A Safety Advisory Notice (SAN 2021-005) advising organisation and users of the issue, the actions that need to be completed, and a link to direct them to further information if required was sent out to all GP Practices and Clinical Services on 3 February 2021.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-EMIS-Redacted
    Page 5 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Develop an automated appointment-book refresh solution for current-day appointments and inactive user sessions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. The development of a solution to mitigate the risk to all GP Practices and Clinical Services using the appointment book functionality is underway. This is estimated to be released early Q2 2021, this will:”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-EMIS-Redacted
    Page 5 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Roll out the completed appointment-refresh functionality to all users through controlled implementation and effectiveness and performance checks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Once completed, the functionality will be rolled out to all users in a controlled manner, to ensure it meets effectiveness and performance metrics. This approach is in line with usual processes for changes to functionality to ensure clinical safety and system performance is maintained.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-EMIS-Redacted
    Page 5 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Issue a Safety Advisory Notice to GP practices and clinical services setting out required actions and further information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• A Safety Advisory Notice (SAN) was sent out to all GP Practices and Clinical Services on 3 February 2021, advising organisations and users of the issue, the actions that need to be completed, and a link to direct them to further information if required.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Send all GP practices information about appointment-refresh risks, resolution steps and IT support contacts.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The most recent position has been checked by the CCG’s IT Team in light of your report, and I am advised that with the upgrade to Windows 10 there have been a number of reports to EMIS of this problem reoccurring. In response to this information, the CCG has sent a communication to all GP practices highlighting potential problems and providing information on how this can be resolved, as well as providing them with contact details for the IT support service so that they can access assistance on resolving any ongoing problems. In addition, EMIS issued a safety advisory notice on 3rd February to alert practices to the need to identify and address this issue.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-CCG-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Check that the relevant computer ports are open to address the EMIS appointment-screen refresh problem.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Second issue was the problem with EMIS and not refreshing the appointments. █ had highlighted this on 30.7.2020. Even manually refreshing the screen didn’t highlight new patients added and literally had to log on and odd the system and only then did patients appear. There have been other bugs with the IT system. █ pointed out these were escalated to EMIS on 4/8/20 by █. They suggested to check computer ports were open.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-Ashfield-Surgery-Redacted
    Page 22 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Chase the IT desk and further escalate the EMIS appointment-screen refresh problem.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Second issue was the problem with EMIS and not refreshing the appointments. █ had highlighted this on 30.7.2020. Even manually refreshing the screen didn’t highlight new patients added and literally had to log on and odd the system and only then did patients appear. There have been other bugs with the IT system. █ pointed out these were escalated to EMIS on 4/8/20 by █. They suggested to check computer ports were open.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-Ashfield-Surgery-Redacted
    Page 22 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Review the underlying appointment-refresh technology.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. A further review of the underlying appointment refresh technology is planned for 2021.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-EMIS-Redacted
    Page 5 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Continue investigating reported appointment-refresh failures and resolve them as far as possible.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Have you investigated other solutions, so this doesn’t happen in future? Given the increase in remote working that has occurred over 2020, we are looking at potential solutions to improve this functionality. Until we can implement a solution we will continue to investigate any instances of Appointment Refresh failure that are reported to us, and resolve those as best we can.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-EMIS-Redacted
    Page 10 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Issue guidance to GP practices on preventing and resolving appointment-refresh problems.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I understand that the issue of appointments not refreshing was raised as a concern by a number of GP practices. EMIS investigated and identified that this was due to the page(s) not refreshing if certain firewall ports were not opened or users were working remotely through a VPN (virtual private network) connection. The CCG’s IT Team were made aware of the problem around the time this incident occurred, and worked with EMIS and the GP practices to find a cause for the problem and a solution. Guidance was issued following the cause of the problem being identified.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-CCG-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    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

    Continue monitoring appointment-refresh problems and work with EMIS and GP practices to identify and address further issues.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The CCG IT Team will continue to monitor the situation and work with both EMIS and the GP practices to identify and address any further problems.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-CCG-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 March 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

    Manual Appointment Refresh is currently sufficient; users do not need to log out and back into EMIS while automatic refresh is developed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• There is no need for users to log out and log into EMIS Web. The current advice is to use the ‘Appointment Refresh’ function whilst an automatic capability is developed and released.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-EMIS-Redacted
    Page 4 · response
    Published 8 March 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

    EMIS is expected to provide the system solution for appointment screens not refreshing; the practice has not received one.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Please find enclosed a Significant Event Analysis that was done shortly after the event. The altered induction pack was updated IN January 2021. We have yet to receive a solution from EMIS.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-Ashfield-Surgery-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 March 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

    EMIS actions addressing the appointment-list issue mean no further action is considered necessary from NHSE/I at this time.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Given the action already being taken by EMIS, my Primary Care colleagues consider that there is no further action for NHSE/I to take at this time.”

    Source location

    2021-0061-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 March 2021

    Open published response
  6. West Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Grahame Searby · 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

    Grahame Searby, who had extreme anxiety and depression and was under community mental health supervision, was found hanging at his home on 27 July 2017. The principal concern was that the mental health team lacked access to the GP database through EMIS, limiting information gathering about his care.

    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 mental health team access to appropriate GP data via EMIS

    Wider context from the report

    “During the evidence ████████ and ████████ informed me that at the time of Mr Searby’s death, the mental health team did not have access to the system one database or EMIS for the purposes of referencing the GP’s database. Although I was told that access via the system one data base is currently in operation, there is still no access to the appropriate date via EMIS ”

    Source location

    Grahame Searby · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Derby and Derbyshire

    AI-generated summary

    Louise Sharon Henry · 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

    Louise Sharon Henry was found deceased at home on 1 April 2013 after consuming a substantial amount of amphetamine and ibuprofen while experiencing a deterioration in her mental state, including psychotic symptoms and hallucinations. The report identified concerns about her discharge from mental health services, including failures to communicate relapse triggers and a clear contingency plan, lack of reassessment after reports of deterioration, and ambiguity between agencies about care-coordination roles and procedures.

    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 GP awareness and use of EMIS Special Patient Note and Right Care Plan facilities for mental health risk information

    Wider context from the report

    “4. That GPs do not appreciate the use that can be made of the Special Patient Note facility and Right Care plan facility on the EMIS system operated by GPs. I heard evidence that key information relating to patients and in particular mental health patients can be updated on to the Special Patient Note facility and the Right Care Plan facility by GPs and used to record risk relapse triggers and indicators for patient’s with mental health difficulties and risk of suicide/ self harm. This enables Out of Hours Services such as those operated by Derbyshire HealthCare United to access key risk information when they are called out of hours when the GP and the full GP records with this key information is not available. There appears to be action that can be taken by NHS England through the Clinical Commissioning Groups to educate GPs as to this facility. ”

    Source location

    Louise Sharon Henry · 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

    Review the PARIS discharge-letter format after the audit and determine necessary changes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “11. On completion of the audit, a review of the discharge letter format available within the PARIS system will take place and it will be amended accordingly. New templates will be configured which will alert GPs to information they should enter onto the ‘special patient notes’ facility.”

    Source location

    2015-0013-Response-by-Derbyshire-Healthcare-NHS-Trust
    Page 6 · response
    Published 16 January 2015

    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

    Remind practices to use Special Patient Notes and Right Care Plans for patients with mental health conditions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I have been asked to remind you about the use of Special Patient Notes and, where available, Right Care Plans particularly in relation to patients with mental health conditions following a Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths from the Coroner’s Office.”

    Source location

    2015-0013-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 January 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026