Recurring concern

Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 6 Dec 2013•Latest report 11 May 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of the ambulance call triage and re-triage process, including initial clinical validation, categorisation, evidence-based category changes, recognition of new or worsening symptoms, timely re-triage and escalation to a more urgent response.

Not included

  • Excludes generic ambulance response delays or resource shortages where the triage or re-triage decision is not deficient.
  • Excludes failures in communicating dispatch status or expected response times after a triage decision has been made.
  • Excludes downstream ambulance attendance, hospital handover or clinical treatment failures that do not concern ambulance call triage or re-triage.
  • Excludes non-ambulance triage processes unless the report explicitly identifies the same ambulance call triage concern.
Reports
50

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
61

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
72

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 England17
Department of Health and Social Care12
Association of Ambulance Chief Executives8
Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust7
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust5
NHS Pathways5
National Ambulance Service Medical Directors4
South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust4
Emergency Call Prioritisation Advisory Group3
North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust3
College of Paramedics2
East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust2
East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust2
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence2
NHS West and North London Integrated Care Board2

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

    Joel Phillip COLK · 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

    Joel Phillip Colk called 999 after ingesting at least 50g of a substance and was attended by an ambulance after the call was upgraded from category 3 to category 2. He was in cardiac arrest on attendance and died at home on 2 October 2023. The concerns include that NHS Pathways did not differentiate overdoses by substance, amount, timing or patient weight, and did not reflect the time-sensitive treatment required for this ingestion; ambulances also did not carry the antidote in the area described.

    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 assign sufficiently urgent dispositions for time-sensitive chemical ingestions

    Wider context from the report

    “The Court heard that when a call is made to 999 that the call is categorised using NHS Pathways and that all overdoses would be in the same classification resulting in the same disposition and response category. The system does not differentiate between types of, severity of or the drugs/chemicals reported as being the cause of the overdose. The system also does not differentiate call classification taking into account the amount reported as ingested, the timing of ingestion or the patient's weight. The Court heard that all of these factors can impact on the time in which care needs to be rendered to prevent death. The example given to the Court was that someone who had taken a relatively small paracetamol that would be unlikely to cause harm would, using Pathways, have the same resultant disposition as someone who had ingested a significant amount of a known lethal chemical. Secondly, the Court heard that in the case of ████████ ingestion that treatment is only effective if medications are administered before the patient suffers a cardiac arrest. This likely will occur incredibly rapidly and is a known effect of the chemical. The Pathways system does not reflect the time sensitive nature of an effective response when it is known that ████████ has been ingested and would not create a higher disposition requiring more urgent attendance than category 3. The Court was also told that clinicians do not carry on any Ambulances within South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust Methylene Blue which is the antidote to ████████ ingestion as this is not within national guidance. I heard that in some areas there are ongoing trials for some areas that this is on board vehicles within the HART (Hazardous Area Response Team). Therefore in this area the treatment is only available when a patient reaches an acute hospital with an A&E department and the evidence was that often patients enter cardiac arrest before this occurs. ”

    Source location

    Joel Phillip COLK · 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

    Apply overdose safeguards including timely clinical review, automatic escalation when delayed, TOXBASE consultation, and assessment of ongoing suicidal ideation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “When an absence of immediately life-threatening symptoms such as the above is being presented in intentional overdose, the lowest ambulance disposition that can be reached is a Category 3 emergency ambulance outcome. However this Category 3 outcome is supported by additional measures specific to overdose that have been in place within SECAmb since July 2019 and further amendments to local procedures following the publication of a operational guidance by NHS England and the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) entitled, “Category 3 – 999 Overdoses and Suicidal Ideation Calls; Initial Assessment of Lethality / Toxicity Principles Document” in April 2021, subsequently being further updated in November 2023.”

    Source location

    Response from SECAmb
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 November 2024

    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 ambulance-service workstream exploring artificial intelligence to identify rare or uniquely risky 999 calls and support earlier clinical attention.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a Trust, we would like to use this case alongside others to support a workstream in early development that we are undertaking, regarding the potential for the use of new and emerging technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence to ‘ambiently listen’ to 999 calls. The aim is to enhance patient safety and reduce human cognitive burden, potentially highlighting certain calls to clinicians that have rare or unique risks earlier. We are in the early stages of understanding this technology and undertaking this work alongside four other NHS Ambulance Trusts as part of the Southern Ambulance Collaborative, and although we envisage if successful this having wider benefits to a range of presentations that 999 ambulance calls present, we have included ████████ overdose as an example within the proposed case for change.”

    Source location

    Response from SECAmb
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 November 2024

    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

    Publish a national operational procedure requiring clinical oversight and timely escalation for Category 3 overdose and suicidal-ideation calls.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In April 2021, NHS England in conjunction with the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) published a new operational procedure for all ambulance services in England entitled, “Category 3/ 999 Overdose and Suicidal Ideation Calls; Initial Assessment of Lethality/Toxicity Principles Document”. This document followed a detailed review that had been undertaken to consider agreed ambulance control room processes, to ensure suicidal patients receive the correct clinical response. This review had also been the catalyst for NHS England contacting all ambulance and NHS 111 services in early 2019 as described above. The guidance highlights the critical importance of clinical oversight and review (rather than, for example, a re-categorisation of calls to Category 1 on a case-by-case basis) and sets out that:”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 November 2024

    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 overdose guidance to include Category 5 dispositions and require urgent remote clinical assessment pending appropriate ambulance response.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Most recently, the overdose guidance was updated in November 2023 to include callers who reach a Category 5 disposition (hear and treat). This followed a review by ECPAG, NHS England and NASMeD, part of the AACE, to ensure it remained clinically fit for purpose. For those cases which do not automatically result in a Category 1 or 2 emergency ambulance response, an urgent remote clinical assessment will take place, pending which the case will be dealt with as a Category 3 emergency ambulance response. The objective of further remote clinical assessment”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 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

    Existing overdose procedures provide additional clinical review, TOXBASE assessment and automatic escalation, supporting Category 3 ambulance dispositions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “When an absence of immediately life-threatening symptoms such as the above is being presented in intentional overdose, the lowest ambulance disposition that can be reached is a Category 3 emergency ambulance outcome. However this Category 3 outcome is supported by additional measures specific to overdose that have been in place within SECAmb since July 2019 and further amendments to local procedures following the publication of a operational guidance by NHS England and the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) entitled, “Category 3 – 999 Overdoses and Suicidal Ideation Calls; Initial Assessment of Lethality / Toxicity Principles Document” in April 2021, subsequently being further updated in November 2023.”

    Source location

    Response from SECAmb
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 November 2024

    Open published response
  2. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    Amanda Jane GAINFORD · 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

    Amanda Jane GAINFORD, aged 52, sustained abdominal injuries while detained in a mental health ward and later died at Aintree Hospital on 4 November 2022 from multiorgan failure due to splenic laceration and liver cirrhosis. The inquest identified missed opportunities to provide intravenous fluids and call an ambulance earlier while she had prolonged low blood pressure. It also raised concern that clinicians were not sufficiently aware of the ability to challenge ambulance call categorisation and request a clinical review from the ambulance service.

    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 clinician awareness of the ability to challenge ambulance call categorisation and request clinical review

    Wider context from the report

    “During the inquest the court heard evidence from the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) witness who confirmed that call handlers for the service are not medically trained but receive basic medical training. The system used nationally to categorise calls is reliant upon questions asked and information which is input by the call handler to achieve a categorisation of a call. In this case, there was no evidence the call categorisation was incorrect, however, an ambulance was called on 3 occasions due to Amanda's condition, on the last occasion that call was made by a Doctor on the scene providing care for Amanda, who as of the opinion that he was unable to keep the patient stable due to low blood pressure over a prolonged period. The NWAS witness gave evidence to the court that had the Doctor disagreed with the category 2 classification of the call or sought to escalate his clinical concerns regarding a patient, that he had the ability to challenge that and to request a review by a clinician available to NWAS. The Doctor was unaware that he had the ability to challenge the call handler categorisation and to seek a review by a clinician at NWAS, at which point the nature and seriousness of Amanda's condition could have been further reviewed and clearly understood. At a further course attended subsequently by the Doctor he advised that of 50 Doctors in attendance, only 1 was aware of the ability to escalate concerns regarding a patient and the categorisation of a 999 call to the Ambulance service and subsequent response time. It appears that this is an important fact unknown by many clinicians which would enable a clinician to clinician review of a critical patient and the use and dispatch of ambulance resources to prevent the loss of life in critical cases which are not automatically categorised at the highest level of response. ”

    Source location

    Amanda Jane GAINFORD · 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

    Publish and maintain a national framework enabling healthcare professionals to challenge ambulance call categorisation and request clinical review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Your Report raised the concern that many healthcare professionals (HCPs) were unaware of their ability to challenge ambulance call handler categorisation and seek a review by a clinician.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 October 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 framework advises healthcare professionals that they may challenge the assigned ambulance category or response time based on clinical concern.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Framework includes the question order for HCP requests and the information that HCPs will be asked to provide. Clinicians using the HCP process are advised of both the category of call assigned and an estimated response time based on the current activity level. They are given the option to add anything else once that information is shared and would be able to challenge the category/response based on clinical concern.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 24 October 2024

    Open published response
  3. Norfolk

    AI-generated summary

    Aran Sean BRADBURY · 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

    On 21 August 2023, Aran Sean Bradbury applied a ligature to his neck, suffered cardiac arrest and was taken to hospital, where he died on 25 August 2023 from hypoxic ischaemic brain injury following hanging. The report raised concern that ambulance triage coding may assign Category 3 rather than Category 2 priority to patients with a history of mental illness who have ingested substances, potentially resulting in a longer wait for an ambulance. In this case, there was a two-hour delay between the 999 call and ambulance dispatch.

    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 ambulance triage coding to consider higher-priority codes after assigning a mental-illness code

    Wider context from the report

    “4) I heard oral evidence that: 25-C codes refer to patients with altered levels of consciousness; Code 25-C-1 (which results to a Category 3 prioritisation) refers to patients with an altered level of consciousness and a history of mental illness; Other subsets of Code 25-C exist, including 25-C-2 which refers to patients with an altered level of consciousness who have ingested substances; and that Code 25-C-2 would result to a Category 2 prioritisation. 5) The evidence I heard was that although Mr Bradbury had ingested substances which might have resulted in a 25-C-2 coding (and therefore at Category 2 prioritisation for an ambulance), given that he also had a history of mental illness he was coded as 25-C-1 (and therefore a Category 3 priority) because the system does not allow for consideration of Codes 25-C-2, 25-C-3 etc if it had determined a 25-C-1 code based on the information provided. 6) The operation of this system as described in the evidence I heard could result in patients who might otherwise warrant a category 2 prioritisation being prioritised as Category 3 and therefore wait longer for an ambulance to attend. Patients with a history of mental illness would appear to fall within this group. ”

    Source location

    Aran Sean BRADBURY · 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

    Write to ambulance trusts requesting confirmation of compliance with guidance on 999 overdose and suicidal-ideation calls.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS England’s ECPAG has since written to all ambulance trusts asking them to confirm full compliance with all aspects of the NHSE guidance on ‘999 overdose and suicidal ideation calls’ and asking AMPDS trusts to confirm they have ensured that any calls where a 25-C-1 (any/no suffix), 25-C-2 (any/no suffix) or 25-C-4 (any/no suffix) determinant is reached, are amended to a Category 2 if there is use of medications or substances, until a software update is implemented.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 October 2024

    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

    Request AMPDS trusts to amend specified 25-C medication or substance calls to Category 2 until the software update is implemented.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS England’s ECPAG has since written to all ambulance trusts asking them to confirm full compliance with all aspects of the NHSE guidance on ‘999 overdose and suicidal ideation calls’ and asking AMPDS trusts to confirm they have ensured that any calls where a 25-C-1 (any/no suffix), 25-C-2 (any/no suffix) or 25-C-4 (any/no suffix) determinant is reached, are amended to a Category 2 if there is use of medications or substances, until a software update is implemented.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 October 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

    Existing clinical oversight safeguards for overdose and suicidal ideation calls are considered sufficient beyond initial ambulance response-category mapping.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The mapping of a patient to an initial response category is only the first step; ambulance services have robust clinical oversight safeguards in place for patients presenting with overdose and suicidal ideation. EOCs follow specific principles on their respective triage tool to ensure clinical oversight is rapidly initiated. These principles have been reviewed and strengthened through several national recommendations since 2019.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 October 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 owns 999 call categorisation matters and administers the process for considering proposed changes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In response to your matters of concern around 999 call categorisation, we must inform you that the primary ownership of these matters lie with NHS England. NHS England administer and chair the Clinical Coding Review Group. Any changes to categorisation of calls proposed by this group are then taken to NASMeD for endorsement and are then taken to ECPAG for approval. Once changes”

    Source location

    Response from AACE
    Page 1 · response
    Published 30 October 2024

    Open published response
  4. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Philip Gordon Ross · 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

    Philip Gordon Ross suffered a fall at home on 3 December 2023 and was unable to move while awaiting an ambulance. His ambulance call was not clinically validated or re-triaged promptly, and the ambulance arrived at around 02:30 hours after his condition had deteriorated. He later died in hospital on 19 December 2023 from multiple organ failure caused by rhabdomyolysis and bronchopneumonia precipitated by the fall. The principal concern was that late re-triage or clinical validation of Category 3 and 4 ambulance calls may place patients at risk of early death.

    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 complete timely clinical validation or re-triage of Category 3 and 4 calls

    Wider context from the report

    “Under the Ambulance Response Programme, Category 3 and 4 cases have response times of 120 and 180 minutes respectively. SECAMB aim to validate these calls within 90 minutes to ensure that patients receive the most appropriate care at the right time. However, SECAMB have not produced evidence that their timeline for clinical validation is being met and it was not met in this case. Categories 3 and 4 are deemed less serious cases and therefore have extended response times for ambulance attendance, which can become further extended at times of high demand. Because of these potentially long response times, timely clinical validation is important to ensure correct categorisation and/or identify a deteriorating situation. The coroner is concerned that late re-triage or clinical validation of Category 3 and 4 calls is placing patients at risk of early death. ”

    Source location

    Philip Gordon Ross · 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

    Implement a portal enabling Urgent Community Response teams to pull suitable Category 3 and 4 patients awaiting clinical validation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since February 2024 we have further worked collaboratively to optimise the use of Urgent Community Response (UCR) Teams across the region. UCR teams are NHS rapid response community-based teams comprising of specialist health care professionals who are able to respond to patients within 2 hours of referral and implement interventions or treatments within the patient’s home, such as managing patients who have fallen. We have implemented an innovative ‘portal’ that these teams' access and are able to ‘pull’ patients from the Category 3 & Category 4 awaiting validation queue, responding directly to a range of appropriate patients themselves who would otherwise be anticipating an ambulance service response. This has resulted in timelier clinically appropriate responses for over 1,160 patients to date who otherwise would have been waiting for clinical validation.”

    Source location

    Response from South East Coast Ambulance Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 September 2024

    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 Urgent Care Navigation Hubs and geographically zoned clinical assessment for Category 3 and 4 patients awaiting validation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have changed our operating model with regards Category 3 & Category 4 validation with the aim of evaluating its effectiveness over the coming months, this change of working introduced in October 2024 has seen the rollout of Urgent Care Navigation Hubs (UCNHs) based across the region, with a local focus alongside community teams from within the geography to review and undertake clinical assessments of patients awaiting a response, local oversight with “Zoning” of individual areas has given early indication of potentially identifying incidents that would benefit from earlier clinical intervention, particularly from a multi-disciplinary approach to avoid further deterioration.”

    Source location

    Response from South East Coast Ambulance Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 September 2024

    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

    Recruit substantive staff, paramedics and experienced agency nurses for control-room clinical validation of 999 calls.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In line with continuing high levels of anticipated demand as we approach winter an extensive recruitment campaign is under way for substantive staff, paramedics and experienced agency nurses to work in our control rooms focusing on the clinical validation of 999 calls.”

    Source location

    Response from South East Coast Ambulance Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 September 2024

    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

    Operate a harm review process for patients experiencing the longest daily waits for Category 3 and 4 validation, using findings to improve operational processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We continue to operate within a challenged healthcare system with our 999 & 111 services often facing surges in activity as a barometer of pressures being experienced in the wider NHS. We recognise at times because of this we will have patients that are waiting longer for a response and have implemented a harm review process into those patients who are experiencing the longest daily waits for Category 3 & 4 validation. This information is used to identify learning and ensure our operational processes are continually reviewed and improved.”

    Source location

    Response from South East Coast Ambulance Service
    Page 3 · response
    Published 16 September 2024

    Open published response
  5. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Michael Clarke · 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

    Michael Clarke, who had multiple underlying health conditions including end stage renal failure, developed suspected urosepsis after a cystoscopy and died in hospital on 30 July 2023. The report raised concerns about delays in category 3 ambulance responses, the categorisation of a call where sepsis was suspected, and the absence of specific sepsis trigger questions on the ambulance pathway.

    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 account for actual category 3 ambulance response times when accepting call categorisation

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The inquest was told that the initial call to NWAS was made by the out of hours nurse. She made it clear that she felt the ambulance response needed to be within 1 hour. As this was in theory the response time consistent with a category 3 response, she accepted the categorisation. This acceptance did not appear to take into account that on that evening a category 3 call was not going to result in an ambulance within 1 hour. ”

    Source location

    Michael Clarke · 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 Category 3 ambulance categorisation was audited and considered safe and appropriate based on the patient’s presentation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You also raised a concern that the initial call to North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) was made by an out of hours Nurse who requested an ambulance within one hour as this is consistent with Category 3 response call-outs. It was not considered then that on that evening a Category 3 call was not going to result in an ambulance attending within one hour.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England and NHS GMIC
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 May 2024

    Open published response
  6. South Wales Central

    AI-generated summary

    Brian JAMES · 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

    Brian JAMES, aged 91, suffered a cerebral haemorrhage after falling out of bed at home and died in hospital on 1 November 2021. There was an approximately nine-hour delay before the ambulance arrived. Concerns included callers not understanding when to call back during delayed ambulance responses and the risk that insufficient welfare calls could result in missed reassessment and regrading of the 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

    Failure to maintain regular welfare calls and reassess delayed ambulance responses

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) A script used by Operators within WAST as part of the Clinical Safety Plan inform callers not to call back for an estimated time of arrival of the ambulance. They are told to only call back if there is a deterioration in the patient’s condition. (2) During periods of a delayed response from an ambulance, WAST best practice is for an Operator to maintain regular contact with callers to assess any change in their condition. During periods of excessive demand, it is considered that this is not always achievable, and therefore Welfare calls are prioritised to callers considered vulnerable. (3) There may be a risk that callers do not understand the instruction to only call back if there is a deterioration, and/or may not recognise a deterioration, and feel they cannot call WAST again. There is a further risk that unless regular welfare calls are made during periods of delayed response, there is a missed opportunity to properly re-assess and re-grade the response to a call by WAST. ”

    Source location

    Brian JAMES · 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

    Establish a dispatch support role whose day-to-day responsibilities include undertaking welfare calls for patients waiting prolonged periods for ambulance responses.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Emergency Medical Service Coordination is currently in the process of undergoing a restructure which will include a support role for dispatch. Whilst job descriptions, roles and responsibilities are yet to be confirmed, undertaking welfare calls will form part of the day-to-day responsibilities of this role. Additionally, the Trust is exploring new ways using technology to ensure the provision of welfare calls to patients waiting in the community and is liaising with other UK ambulance trusts to understand if there are any different processes in place which would be suitable for this Trust’s development and use.”

    Source location

    Response from Welsh Ambulance Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 February 2024

    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

    Explore technology-enabled methods for providing welfare calls to patients waiting in the community, informed by processes used by other UK ambulance trusts.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Emergency Medical Service Coordination is currently in the process of undergoing a restructure which will include a support role for dispatch. Whilst job descriptions, roles and responsibilities are yet to be confirmed, undertaking welfare calls will form part of the day-to-day responsibilities of this role. Additionally, the Trust is exploring new ways using technology to ensure the provision of welfare calls to patients waiting in the community and is liaising with other UK ambulance trusts to understand if there are any different processes in place which would be suitable for this Trust’s development and use.”

    Source location

    Response from Welsh Ambulance Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 February 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

    High demand and limited capacity prevent regular welfare calls while emergency calls are prioritised.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Managing Delayed Response Standard Operating Procedure sets out a process to undertake welfare calls for those patients who are waiting a prolonged time for a response due to high demand. It is identified that it is best practice to maintain regular contact with patients who are experiencing a protracted response, but it is recognised that there may be limited capacity to undertake welfare calls due to high demand. Call takers’ priority is to take incoming emergency calls to identify patients who are sickest to ensure an appropriate response. Where capacity issues mean that a welfare call cannot be undertaken, this is documented within the incident. Callers are instructed to call back if anything changes/they get worse as covered in the above point.”

    Source location

    Response from Welsh Ambulance Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 February 2024

    Open published response
  7. Teesside and Hartlepool

    AI-generated summary

    Donna Georgina Smith · 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

    Donna Georgina Smith suffered chest pain at home on 17 July 2021, deteriorated into cardiac arrest, and died shortly after arriving at hospital. The report identifies concerns that her worsening condition was not recognised or escalated from Category 2 to Category 1, that the methods for detecting deterioration were not sufficiently robust, and that the ambulance response took one hour and six minutes.

    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 detect worsening conditions in Category 2 calls

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The call handler did not detect a worsening condition and did not escalate the call from Category 2 to category 1. ”

    Source location

    Donna Georgina Smith · 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

    Finalise the EOC clinician procedure for managing deteriorating patients.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst not directly linked with this case, we are writing a procedure for EOC clinicians to provide guidance for deteriorating patients. The procedure is not yet finalised given the complexities and balance of not overwhelming the system with higher priority ambulance responses. The risk with the latter is that we would create potential risk for patients categorised as Category 2 and Category 3, ultimately leading to delayed responses. The underpinning principles are those achieved by using the NHS Pathways system and/or other algorithm-based triage tools and achieving the Ambulance Response Programme response targets.”

    Source location

    Response from North East Ambulance Service
    Page 4 · response
    Published 25 January 2024

    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

    Operate the Dispatch Clinical Risk Assessment procedure to prioritise Category 2 responses by clinical risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Dispatch Clinical Risk Assessment Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)”

    Source location

    Response from North East Ambulance Service
    Page 9 · response
    Published 25 January 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 call handler followed NHS Pathways correctly, and the patient's conscious, breathing condition did not warrant a Category 1 response.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In respect to this concern, the NEAS investigation concluded that the call handler managed the call correctly and followed the NHS Pathways system and generated a Category 2 ambulance response. This is the highest level of response for a patient who is severely unwell but conscious and breathing and in line with the Ambulance Response Programme (ARP).”

    Source location

    Response from North East Ambulance Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 January 2024

    Open published response
  8. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    James CAMPION · 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

    James Campion, aged 57, died after consuming mirtazapine and alcohol following contact with the Psychiatric Crisis Team about taking an overdose. An ambulance was not allocated until six hours after the initial call, and he was found deceased at home when the crew arrived. The principal concerns were delays in mental health assessment, call triage and ambulance dispatch, alongside inadequate family contact information and limited family involvement.

    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

    Delays in triaging emergency calls involving threats of overdose

    Wider context from the report

    “The delay in triaging the call made by Mr Campion threatening to take an overdose resulted in him taking the overdose. The delay in the ambulance dispatch prevented Mr Campion receiving medical treatment and further psychiatric assistance. The outcome for Mr Campion has been adversely impacted due to the demand on the ambulance service . At the time of the 999 call on 21st July 2022 NWAS were operating at Level 4 of the Plan (PSP) experiencing high demand, acute pressures and high numbers of waiting calls. The options for the emergency services were extremely limited and an ambulance was deployed at the earliest opportunity. Consideration be given to how to support the Ambulance and Mental Health Services in fulfilling the NHS long-term plan for Mental Health, in particular Mental Health Practitioners in Ambulance control rooms. ”

    Source location

    James CAMPION · 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 mental health professionals in 999 call centres and clinical assessment services to direct people in crisis to appropriate care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To supplement this new NHS111 offer, we are also deploying mental health professionals in 999 call centres and clinical assessment services to help ensure that people experiencing a mental health crisis are directed towards appropriate services.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 December 2023

    Open published response
  9. Cheshire

    AI-generated summary

    Glyn Ackerley · 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

    Glyn Ackerley became unresponsive at home on 4 September 2022 after reporting that he had swallowed medication; the cause of death could not be determined. The report raised concern that the NHS Pathways process in place at the time did not distinguish between high-risk and low-risk overdoses, potentially delaying treatment for a potentially fatal overdose.

    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 risk-stratify high-risk overdoses for immediate clinical response

    Wider context from the report

    “The current NHS Pathways process does not differentiate between a high risk and low risk overdose, categorising all such calls without additional symptoms as category 3. Evidence was heard during the inquest that time is of the essence when dealing with an opiate overdose, and giving reversal medication prior to any respiratory depression or cardiac arrest will likely have a better outcome. In light of the concerns raised by this case, NWAS have reviewed their process and added in additional questions for call handlers to identify high risk medications involved in an overdose, which they then automatically categorise as a category 2 and send for a call back from a clinician immediately. NWAS gave evidence in writing that they had raised the concern and their suggested management with the National NHS Pathways team on 6 April 2023, with the result that the national team would continue to review the process but with clinical review in 15 minutes and high risk medications being upgraded to category 2. It is unclear from the evidence whether this is a proposed change to the process in place in September 2022 which would mean Mr Ackerley would have had a category 2 response at 21.48, or whether the system remains the same. If the system is not for a category 2 response for high risk medication, it is my concern that this will not allow for prompt treatment of those who have taken a potentially fatal overdose. ”

    Source location

    Glyn Ackerley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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

    Publish a national operational procedure requiring further overdose-call clinical intervention within 30 minutes and escalation to Category 2 if it does not occur within 40 minutes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In April 2021, NHS England and Improvement, in collaboration with the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) published a new operational procedure¹ for all ambulance services in England which sets out that, where an overdose is declared, a further clinical intervention should take place within 30 minutes, and/or the case will be automatically upgraded to a Category 2 ambulance response if this does not occur within 40 minutes. If, on review the clinical view is that, given the individual factors of the case this should be upgraded to a Category 1 or 2 emergency ambulance response this is done without delay.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 1 December 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

    Complete a national review of the overdose and suicidal-ideation call procedure to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In October 2023 a review of this document was completed by the Emergency Call Prioritisation Advisory Group (ECPAG, NHS England) and the National Ambulance Service Medical Director’s Group (NASMeD, a combination of Ambulance Chief Executives) to ensure it remains fit for purpose.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 1 December 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

    Re-share the overdose and suicidal-ideation initial assessment principles document with the ambulance service concerned.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The specific details of this case were not shared with NHS Pathways. However, the NHS Pathways team has discussed this case with North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) in response to their concerns regarding overdoses and suicidal ideation cases.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 1 December 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

    Changes to overdose ambulance categorisation are determined by the Clinical Coding Review Group and Emergency Call Prioritisation Advisory Group.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Recommendation that concerns and proposals for change should be raised with the Clinical Coding Review Group (CCRG) and ECPAG.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 1 December 2023

    Open published response
  10. Newcastle and North Tyneside

    AI-generated summary

    Shiya Jonathan Barnard Collins · 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

    On 29 April 2022, Shiya Jonathan Barnard Collins sustained a severe leg laceration after kicking a glass door panel and suffered catastrophic blood loss before an ambulance arrived. The principal concern was that the ambulance service’s computer system prevented clinicians from assessing or upgrading the response despite repeated calls indicating that his condition was deteriorating.

    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 control-room computer system to allow clinician assessment and upgrading of calls during ongoing live calls

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Seven calls were made to the North East Ambulance Service (following the initial call) indicating that Shiya Collins’ condition was deteriorating. Call handlers recognised the need for clinical input in order to facilitate a possible upgrade of the ambulance response to category 1. However, the locking facility on the Cleric computer system used in the control room precluded any clinician from assessing/upgrading the call because the system was locked and unable to be accessed whilst live calls relating to the case were ongoing. ”

    Source location

    Shiya Jonathan Barnard Collins · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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

    Change records to open in read-only mode, requiring users to request a lock.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have consulted with our customers (Ambulance Trusts) to explore potential improvements and we have agreed that minor changes will be implemented within the system:”

    Source location

    Response from North East Ambulance Service
    Page 3 · response
    Published 6 November 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

    Streamline requests to release a record lock from one user to another.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have consulted with our customers (Ambulance Trusts) to explore potential improvements and we have agreed that minor changes will be implemented within the system:”

    Source location

    Response from North East Ambulance Service
    Page 3 · response
    Published 6 November 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

    The system did not wholly preclude clinician access or call upgrading because several built-in mechanisms could overcome a locked record.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The lock feature is important to protect the integrity of the call and to stop data conflicts, the record (call) is only locked to an operator while they are active in the call. While it is technically correct that a clinician is not able to re-triage a call whilst it is in a locked state, I hope that the information I have provided adequately addresses the concern that “the computer system precluded any clinician from accessing/upgrading the call because the system was locked” Within the capabilities and provision of the Cleric system there are several means through which the ‘locking’ issue was able to have been overcome.(described above).”

    Source location

    Response from North East Ambulance Service
    Page 3 · response
    Published 6 November 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

    Record locks will remain because they are fundamental, while existing operational procedures handle circumstances involving locked calls.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is important to note that the above changes will not eliminate locks as they remain a fundamental mechanism within these types of system, they are minor amendments to streamline existing functionality. System users also have robust operational processes/procedures in place to handle such circumstances.”

    Source location

    Response from North East Ambulance Service
    Page 3 · response
    Published 6 November 2023

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026