Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence
First to latest report 23 Aug 2013 — 3 Jun 2026
Reports that mention this concern
18
Times this concern has been raised
22
Stated actions linked to this concern
23
What this concern includes
Includes failures in the dedicated process for receiving, routing, triaging, reviewing, acknowledging or acting on clinically significant correspondence sent to or received by healthcare services, including GP requests, hospital letters and correspondence containing medication or referral information.
What is not included
Excludes failures involving information that was reviewed and acted upon correctly but communicated poorly to patients or other services afterward.
Excludes generic clinical record-keeping, staffing, training or communication deficiencies unless they directly impair review or action on incoming clinical correspondence.
Excludes failures limited to the substantive clinical decision made after correspondence was reliably reviewed.
Excludes correspondence processes for non-clinical administrative matters or unrelated public-safety domains.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, 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.
Department of Health and Social Care2
NHS England2
The Croft Shifa Health Centre2
Barts Health NHS Trust1
Beeston Health Centre1
Bexley Medical Group1
Brinnington Surgery1
Brook Medical Centre1
Care Quality Commission1
Clevedon Medical Centre1
Cornerstone Family Practice1
Derriford Hospital1
Droylsden Road Family Practice1
Farnham Park Health Group1
General Medical Council1
Healthcare site14
NHS trust8
Integrated care board3
Clinical commissioning group2
Executive non-departmental public body2
Ministerial department2
Health and care professional regulator1
Health and social care service regulator1
Health professional body1
Multi-service care provider1
Social-care provider1
Reports and published responses 18 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
Failure to refer patients to Cardiology following relevant clinical findings or correspondence
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Surrey
Concerns raised1
Failure of the correspondence-review system to identify GP requests for medication reviews
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Create an action plan addressing the concerns raised in the PFD report.
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised1
Failure of screening committee oversight to ensure referrals are received and actioned
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Maintain the UHL Screening Committee to oversee screening referrals, rejected cases and related incidents.
Avon
Concerns raised1
Lack of daily staff checks that all GP messages have been countersigned as received or acted on
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon
Concerns raised1
Delays in processing incoming clinical consultation records
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Borchardt Medical Centre
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Borchardt Medical Centre
Require staff to code incoming records on the day of arrival and make them available to clinicians for consultations.
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
Lack of a system at the GP practice to ensure successful receipt of important correspondence
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Norfolk
Concerns raised2
Failure to ensure that correspondence concerning a patient’s suicide risk or self-harming behaviour is noted
Failure of GP practice guidelines to require referral of correspondence concerning a patient’s suicide risk or self-harming behaviour to a doctor or GP
Linked response
Mundesley Medical Centre
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Mundesley Medical Centre
Develop clear communication channels with NCH&C staff to alert the practice and summarise relevant concerns or actions.
Mundesley Medical Centre
Show correspondence about vulnerable people at risk of suicide or deliberate self-harm to a GP.
Mundesley Medical Centre
Review SystmOne filters to ensure relevant information is visible to users.
Mundesley Medical Centre
Inform a GP when outside agencies make direct mental-health referrals, including relevant substance-misuse, safeguarding or domestic-violence concerns.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Mundesley Medical Centre
The neuropsychological report was not passed to a GP because it recorded historical self-harm and stated there was no current suicidal intent.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Mundesley Medical Centre
The referral letter was filed because it indicated no action for the practice and did not identify current suicide risk requiring GP review.
No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
West Yorkshire (East)
Concerns raised1
Failure to consider and act on Consultant Psychiatrist correspondence
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.