Recurring concern
Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 23 Aug 2013•Latest report 3 Jun 2026
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.
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.
- Reports
- 18
- Individual concerns
- 22
- Date range
- 2013–2026
- Stated actions
- 23
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
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.
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.
-
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.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
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.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Create an action plan addressing the concerns raised in the PFD report.
Stated by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
-
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.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Maintain the UHL Screening Committee to oversee screening referrals, rejected cases and related incidents.
Stated by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of daily staff checks that all GP messages have been countersigned as received or acted on
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
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.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Require staff to code incoming records on the day of arrival and make them available to clinicians for consultations.
Stated by Borchardt Medical Centre
-
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.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
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
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
-
Action
Develop clear communication channels with NCH&C staff to alert the practice and summarise relevant concerns or actions.
Stated by Mundesley Medical Centre -
Action
Show correspondence about vulnerable people at risk of suicide or deliberate self-harm to a GP.
Stated by Mundesley Medical Centre -
Action
Review SystmOne filters to ensure relevant information is visible to users.
Stated by Mundesley Medical Centre
-
Action
Inform a GP when outside agencies make direct mental-health referrals, including relevant substance-misuse, safeguarding or domestic-violence concerns.
Stated by Mundesley Medical Centre
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
The neuropsychological report was not passed to a GP because it recorded historical self-harm and stated there was no current suicidal intent.
Stated by Mundesley Medical Centre
-
Position
The referral letter was filed because it indicated no action for the practice and did not identify current suicide risk requiring GP review.
Stated by Mundesley Medical Centre
-
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.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Data last updated 7 September 2026