First reported 20 May 2015•Latest report 23 Jan 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures in which information specifically needed by emergency responders to assist vulnerable patients is absent, inaccessible, incomplete or not reliably available during the response, including information held in familiar face plans or access-detail systems.
Not included
Excludes generic failures of staff training, documentation or technology unless they directly cause critical vulnerable-patient information to be unavailable to emergency responders.
Excludes failures concerning information access by non-emergency personnel or in non-emergency settings.
Excludes failures to dispatch or call out responders where the issue is not the availability of patient-specific critical information.
Excludes unrelated access-control or information-management failures without a direct emergency-response and vulnerable-patient context.
Reports
6
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
7
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2015–2026
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.
Department of Health and Social Care2
Association of Ambulance Chief Executives1
Careline3651
Care Quality Commission1
City & Hackney Integrated Primary Care C.I.C.1
London Borough of Camden1
NHS England1
Norfolk County Council1
Norfolk Swift Response1
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust1
Recipient name withheld1
South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust1
The Lawson Practice1
Ministerial department2
NHS trust2
Community interest company1
Company1
English county council1
Executive non-departmental public body1
Health and social care service regulator1
Health-sector membership body1
Local authority service1
London borough council1
Social-care provider1
Type not available1
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.
Norfolk
Concerns raised1
Failure to provide emergency responders with access details for vulnerable patients
Responses linked to these concerns
Each 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.3
Action
Confirm procedures for recording and communicating property access information when provided.
Stated by Careline365/Apello GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 January 2026.
Action
Review onboarding and data-capture processes to ensure prompts exist for recording known access arrangements.
Stated by Careline365/Apello GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 January 2026.
Action
Consider how access arrangements should be recorded and communicated within multi-agency emergency response pathways.
Stated by Careline365/Apello GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 January 2026.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.5
Position
Referrals without recorded access details are declined and returned to EEAST under the existing process.
Stated by Norfolk County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
The records contained no property access details, and the ARC accurately reported their absence when the ambulance service asked.
Stated by Careline365/Apello GroupDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Careline365 does not install or control property access arrangements unless specifically requested by the service user or referring authority.
Stated by Careline365/Apello GroupOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Emergency services determine how to gain property access when Careline365 has no access arrangements recorded.
Stated by Careline365/Apello GroupRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The ambulance service is responsible for call categorisation and decisions to refer cases through the community response pathway.
Stated by Careline365/Apello GroupRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
Failure to make multi-agency familiar face plans easily accessible to ambulance first responders
Responses linked to these concerns
Each 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.5
Action
Require ambulance dispatch staff to verbally notify crews of flagged cases and obtain acknowledgement.
Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
Action
Use an internal task and finish group to assess flag-access processes, explore improvements, and update the existing process.
Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
Action
Progress supplier consultation and internal governance assessment of proposed technical changes for direct crew access to special patient notes and flags.
Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
Action
Cascade guidance to emergency ambulance crews on accessing additional patient information and using appropriate systems.
Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
Action
Work with regional partners to develop more effective centralised systems for sharing flags and care plans.
Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
The vehicle MDT is unsuitable for receiving or displaying documents because of its purpose and technological limitations.
Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Dispatch staff may be unable to contact crews about flags during periods of extreme pressure while balancing other priority communications.
Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
The Integrated Care Board is leading regional work to improve centralised flagging and care-plan sharing across providers.
Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
South London
Concerns raised1
Lack of a national risk-flagging system for previous self-harm attendances
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 concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Wiltshire and Swindon
Concerns raised2
Unavailability of a centralised or regionalised database for emergency access to TEP/DNAR information
Failure to ensure accurate and checkable TEP/DNAR information for emergency decision-making
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 concerns
Each 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
Continue responding to DNAR/TEP risks through routine regulatory monitoring and inspection during the consultation period.
Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 April 2020.
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
Inaccessibility of information about recent contacts with other services during emergency call-outs
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 concerns
Each 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.3
Action
Migrate records to a new platform and train staff to support timely, complete recording and mobile working.
Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 September 2018.
Action
Introduce an emergency-services referral checklist requiring Careline to provide London Ambulance Service with the caller’s full history.
Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 September 2018.
Action
Develop information-sharing arrangements with London Ambulance Service.
Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 September 2018.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Calls not resulting in a Careline visit are not routinely passed to response officers because no action from them is required.
Stated by London Borough of CamdenExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Wellbeing coordinated the responses, and there was no evidence that the individual lacked capacity or required mental-health intervention.
Stated by London Borough of CamdenDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
Unavailability of computerised record access for the London Ambulance Service
This report raised 6 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures in which information specifically needed by emergency responders to assist vulnerable patients is absent, inaccessible, incomplete or not reliably available during the response, including information held in familiar face plans or access-detail systems.
