Recurring concern

Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 27 Sep 2013•Latest report 10 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of the cross-service clinical information communication process, including stale or unsupported guidance for emergency clinicians, omitted care decisions, inaccurate handovers and information not reaching involved services.

Not included

  • Excludes failures confined to a single clinician's knowledge or competence where no cross-service information communication issue is identified.
  • Excludes generic training, staffing, documentation or information-system deficiencies that are not specifically tied to communicating clinically important information between care services.
  • Excludes delays or failures in treatment, referral or emergency access where the material communication failure is not part of the concern.
Reports
144

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
157

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
271

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 Care25
NHS England24
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust5
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust5
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board5
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust5
Care Quality Commission4
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust4
Aneurin Bevan University LHB3
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust3
Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust3
Health Services Safety Investigations Body3
Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust3
Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust3
North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust3

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. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Sandra Adina Lomax · 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

    Sandra Adina Lomax died at Stepping Hill Hospital on 25 June 2022 after complications developed from an oesophageal stent that was not removed within the required six-week period. The concerns included inadequate communication and case ownership, delayed escalation, lack of detailed national guidance, absence of a commissioned specialist service, staffing gaps in the regional MDT, and ineffective communication of MDT recommendations.

    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 MDT to effectively communicate agreed actions and recommendations for individual patients

    Wider context from the report

    “4. This was compounded by the fact that the inquest heard evidence that the MDT did not have a system of effective communication of agreed actions and recommendations for individual patients discussed at the MDT. As a consequence local clinicians were unsighted as to the recommended way forward. The inquest was told that an effective and consistent pan GM approach to sharing the outcomes of MDTs would improve patient outcomes. ”

    Source location

    Sandra Adina Lomax · 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

    Continue implementing Cancer MDT Standards and auditing MDT communication and effectiveness across Greater Manchester.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Recognising the challenges in relation to MDT working, the Greater Manchester Cancer Alliance have an improvement programme in place in relation to MDT reform:”

    Source location

    Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
    Page 3 · response
    Published 24 February 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

    Greater Manchester is the appropriate organisation to address local staffing and ineffective communication between the multidisciplinary team.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “GM are the appropriate organisation to respond to your concerns around GM staffing issues and ineffective communication between the MDT. I have been sighted on their response and welcome the Greater Manchester Cancer Alliance improvement programme for MDT reform. I also note that they will be sharing learning from Sandra’s death across the Greater Manchester System.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 24 February 2023

    Open published response
  2. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Jayden Andrew Booroff · 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

    Jayden Andrew Booroff died after absconding from The Linden Centre and being struck by a train on 23 October 2020. The report identified concerns about risk assessments, observation levels, ward security, absconsion procedures, record keeping, medication, and communication between healthcare professionals and emergency services.

    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 communicate self-harm risks to emergency services searching for an absent patient

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) There is a lack of understanding at Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust level about the difference between: a. a patient who has been granted section 17 leave under the Mental Health Act who does not return from a period of authorised leave, and b. a patient who being subject to detention under the Mental Health Act, who has escaped from the confines of the ward and who has not been granted section 17 leave by the Responsible Clinician and therefore, there is a concern as to how this information is then communicated to emergency services searching for the patient of the risks of self-harm. ”

    Source location

    Jayden Andrew Booroff · 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

    Create and disseminate an SBARD aide-mémoire guiding staff escalation to police for patients absent from authorised leave or absconded, including Mental Health Act status and risk information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In light of communication with emergency services, in collaboration with the Trust’s Lessons Team, a one-page aide-mémoire was created to support staff to escalate concerns to the police for incidents where a patient does not return from leave or they have absconded from the ward. This guidance provided information regarding the impact factors that should be verbalised to the police when reporting a person missing. This would then enable the police to make an informed decision in relation to their response. This document uses the SBARD communication tool (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation, Decision). This document was shared with operational managers for cascading to front line staff and calls will be audited between EPUT and Essex Police to ascertain the effectiveness of the tool.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University
    Page 4 · response
    Published 3 February 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

    Audit missing-person calls with Essex Police to assess the aide-mémoire’s effectiveness and establish and share further learning.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In light of communication with emergency services, in collaboration with the Trust’s Lessons Team, a one-page aide-mémoire was created to support staff to escalate concerns to the police for incidents where a patient does not return from leave or they have absconded from the ward. This guidance provided information regarding the impact factors that should be verbalised to the police when reporting a person missing. This would then enable the police to make an informed decision in relation to their response. This document uses the SBARD communication tool (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation, Decision). This document was shared with operational managers for cascading to front line staff and calls will be audited between EPUT and Essex Police to ascertain the effectiveness of the tool.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University
    Page 4 · response
    Published 3 February 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

    Align Missing Persons Procedure B1601 with national guidance and require contact with BTP when suicide-risk information is marked on the PNC.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As detailed by Chief Inspector Scott-Haynes during the inquest, immediate action was taken to align our Missing Persons Procedure B1601 with the College of Policing guidance. The Procedure is now clear that contact must be made with the British Transport Police (“BTP”) if BTP has placed a suicide risk or related information marker on the Police National Computer (“PNC”).”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Police
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 February 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

    Progress collaborative implementation of the national framework for adults missing from health and care settings through multi-agency planning and a Task and Finish group.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “b. This team are also working towards the implementation of ‘The multi-agency response for adults missing from health and care settings - A national framework for England’. This is collaborative guidance produced by the Home Office, NPCC, and the Missing Persons charity. The team held a multi-agency collaborative conference in September 2022 with Essex Local Authorities, local Integrated Care Boards, and third sector organisations and achieved buy-in to a Task & Finish group looking at how to roll out this framework in Essex.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Police
    Page 3 · response
    Published 3 February 2023

    Open published response
  3. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Philip Geoffrey Day · 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 Geoffrey Day was treated with methotrexate for psoriatic arthritis and developed neutropenic sepsis after blood tests showed neutropenia and a raised CRP. He died in hospital on 15 April 2022 after developing ileitis and colitis, followed by cardiac arrest and multi-organ failure. Concerns included delays in triage, medical review and treatment; inadequate communication of information from community clinicians to hospital staff; and insufficient recognition of neutropenic sepsis risk factors and red flags.

    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 document, track and act on inter-clinician communications

    Wider context from the report

    “2. In relation to Mr Day the inquest heard that the community OOH Doctor had correctly recognised the risk of neutropenic sepsis and had rung through to speak to a doctor at the hospital. At the inquest there was no documentation to assist in tracking that conversation or any evidence it had been recorded or acted on. It was clear from the evidence at the inquest that the sharing of information between community clinicians and secondary care was important and that there appears to be no recognised way for this to happened due to varied IT systems and no national recommendations for best practice in this scenario. As a consequence vital information is not available to ED teams. ”

    Source location

    Philip Geoffrey Day · 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

    Lack of a recognised information-sharing pathway between community clinicians and secondary care

    Wider context from the report

    “2. In relation to Mr Day the inquest heard that the community OOH Doctor had correctly recognised the risk of neutropenic sepsis and had rung through to speak to a doctor at the hospital. At the inquest there was no documentation to assist in tracking that conversation or any evidence it had been recorded or acted on. It was clear from the evidence at the inquest that the sharing of information between community clinicians and secondary care was important and that there appears to be no recognised way for this to happened due to varied IT systems and no national recommendations for best practice in this scenario. As a consequence vital information is not available to ED teams. ”

    Source location

    Philip Geoffrey Day · 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

    Raise information-sharing processes between community out-of-hours services and emergency departments with NHS England.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I have asked officials to further raise the processes for information sharing between community out-of-hours services and emergency departments, with NHS England”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 November 2022

    Open published response
  4. Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire

    AI-generated summary

    Kieran Joseph Kevan CRIMMINS · 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

    Kieran Joseph Kevan Crimmins took his own life after discharge from the Crisis and Home Treatment Team, in circumstances where the report found ongoing psychiatric monitoring and support would have been appropriate. The principal concerns were incomplete or inaccurately recorded actions, the way significant information was communicated to him, and apparent gaps in routes back into mental health services and communication between providers.

    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 communication and information sharing between Primary Mental Health Services and Tier 2 therapy providers

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) I expressed concern that someone having been discharged from the CRHT, there appeared to be no route back into the Mental Health Service short of a re-referral to the CRHT itself via A & E for someone who remains vulnerable by reason of their mental state and who is receiving therapy as part of the discharge plan. This is in the context of someone who was receiving support from the Integrated Psychology Service (“IPTS”) and the Dyfed Drug and Alcohol Service (“DDAS”), both of whom were engaged in providing appropriate therapies. My concern is that there appears to be an issue in relation to lines of communication and information sharing between Primary Mental Health Services and Tier 2 providers of therapy. ”

    Source location

    Kieran Joseph Kevan CRIMMINS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Michael John Vince · 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 John Vince, a patient of the community mental health team receiving treatment for schizo-affective disorder, was found deceased at home on 19 June 2021 after apparently taking an overdose. The concerns included prolonged prescribing of medication for insomnia, lack of meaningful prescription review, failure to share evidence of dependence, and failure to monitor the frequency of PRN administration.

    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 share dependence information with the mental health trust

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Evidence of Mr Vince’s dependence upon ████████ was not shared by his GP with the mental health trust. ”

    Source location

    Michael John Vince · 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

    Commence more proactive referral of patients appearing dependent on Z-Drug hypnotics to specialist mental-health services for review and advice.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For my part, I have commenced more proactive referral of patients who appear dependent upon Z-Drug hypnotics for review and advice by specialist NELFT Mental Health services. This has been assisted by the response of the NELFT to the Coronal recommendations and the discussion and collaboration that has resulted. My practice’s Z-Drug Protocol includes a requirement for structured medication review for patients on long term Z-Drugs with mental health issues, and a requirement to notify the Mental Health Team for those patients who request additional Z drugs.”

    Source location

    Response from High St Surgery
    Page 3 · response
    Published 23 September 2022

    Open published response
  6. Dorset

    AI-generated summary

    Carol Patricia Cole · 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

    Carol Patricia Cole was found collapsed and unresponsive at home on 15 May 2020 after being prescribed medication and having a history including depression, unstable personality disorder and previous overdoses. The inquest concluded that her death was suicide. Concerns were raised that processes for sharing Public Protection Notices in the Dorset Council area may have resulted in the GP not receiving information about concerns regarding her mental health, creating a missed opportunity for assessment, support or treatment.

    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 ensure PPNs reach GPs for Dorset Council residents

    Wider context from the report

    “iii. In Dorset there are 2 Local Authorities that cover the County, BCP Council and Dorset Council. If MASH receive a PPN about a resident in the BCP Council area the current arrangement is that MASH send the PPN directly to the GP as required. If they receive a PPN about a resident in the Dorset Council area the current process is that they do not send it directly to the GP but send it directly to the Dorset Adult Access team at Dorset Council, who will then send it to the GP. iv. At the time of her death Carole resided within the Dorset Council area. A PPN was submitted to MASH regarding Carole on 25.4.20 which raised concerns regarding her mental health. The MASH team determined the PNN should be shared with the Dorset Adult Access team to share with the GP in line with the process. v. At the Inquest the representative from the GP surgery confirmed there was no record of the PNN being received by them, which led to a missed opportunity for Carole to be assessed by her GP. vi. The process currently in place, which I understand has been agreed by both Dorset Council and Dorset Police, of preventing the MASH team from sending the PNN directly to the GP, may result in the GP not being informed of the contents of the PPN which may result in a person not receiving an assessment, support or treatment. I am not aware of a reason why the MASH team cannot send it directly to the GP, as they do for those residents in BCP council area, to avoid such missed opportunities to take action which may lead to a future death. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. There could be missed opportunities to share PPNs relating to residents within the Dorset Council area with agencies or professionals due to the current processes in place between Dorset Police and Dorset Council which could lead to a future death. I therefore request that Dorset Police and Dorset Council review their current processes in place regarding the sharing of PPNs by MASH, especially to General Practitioners for the residents within the Dorset Council area. ”

    Source location

    Carol Patricia Cole · 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

    Review PPN-sharing processes with Dorset and BCP Adult Social Care partners to identify safeguarding risks and consistency improvements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You therefore requested that Dorset Police and Dorset Council review their current processes in place regarding the sharing of PPNs by MASH, especially to General Practitioners for the residents within the Dorset Council area.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Police_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Conduct a further review with Health and Social Care partners of PPN-sharing processes, using national best practice to identify improvements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Identification of this risk has prompted a further review with Health partners which is scheduled to commence on 12 April 2022. Police, Health and Social Care will work together to review the current process, what is working well and where improvements can be made based on national best practice from other areas.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Police_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Review current PPN-sharing processes with Dorset Police and BCP Council to identify improvements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The request was made that Dorset Police and Dorset Council review their current processes in place regarding the sharing of PPNs by MASH, especially to General Practitioners for the residents within the Dorset Council area. We reviewed the current PPN process with Dorset Police and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council between 16/02/2022 and 16/03/22. This involved members of the operational management team at Dorset Council and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council and Dorset Police Public Protection Unit meeting to analyse current steps in the process. This identified the following areas of improvement:”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Council_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Amend Dorset Police and Dorset Council PPN-sharing processes to align with BCP processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “i) Amend the current process of sharing PPNs between Dorset Police and Dorset Council to align with BCP processes. This requires work to ensure the MASH has adequate capacity and access to up-to-date information about a person’s GP. To have immediate impact on the current process, Dorset Council will fund additional staffing resources to MASH to assist with the sharing of PPNs to GPs to allow time for a wider system review of MASH to be completed. The plan is to complete recruitment by end of May 2022.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Council_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Fund and recruit additional MASH staff to support sharing PPNs with GPs, with recruitment planned by the end of May 2022.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “i) Amend the current process of sharing PPNs between Dorset Police and Dorset Council to align with BCP processes. This requires work to ensure the MASH has adequate capacity and access to up-to-date information about a person’s GP. To have immediate impact on the current process, Dorset Council will fund additional staffing resources to MASH to assist with the sharing of PPNs to GPs to allow time for a wider system review of MASH to be completed. The plan is to complete recruitment by end of May 2022.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Council_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Meet with Dorset Police, BCP and health partners, including GP safeguarding leads, to discuss PPN-sharing processes and improvements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “ii) A meeting has been arranged between Dorset Council, Dorset Police MASH, BCP and health partners including GP safeguarding leads in April 2022 to discuss current PPN sharing processes, including what is working well and areas for improvement. This was the earliest opportunity to do so, so that all parties could be represented.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Council_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Seek approval to align a partnership review of Adult MASH PPN sharing with the Children’s MASH review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “iii) Share learning from the Regulation 28 report at Dorset’s Safeguarding Adult Review in April 2022 and seek approval to align a full partnership review of PPN sharing within Adult MASH with the Children’s MASH review which will take place in July 2022.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Council_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Amend the Adult Access Team process to forward PPNs to relevant agencies regardless of Adult Social Care involvement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “iv) Amend Dorset Council’s internal process so that the Adult Access Team forward PPNs to relevant agencies or professionals regardless of whether the person is known or not known to Adult Social Care. This was immediately actioned and implemented on 25/02/22.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Council_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Police cannot share PPNs with GPs directly because it lacks access to the Dorset Care Record.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The review also identified that for the Police to carry out the sharing of PPNs to GPs there would be a requirement for Police to have access to the Dorset Care Record which it currently does not have.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Police_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 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

    Dorset Council Adult Social Care staff will be responsible for sharing PPNs with GPs using the Dorset Care Record.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “On 28 March 2022, it was agreed that Dorset Council will fund a member of staff from Adult Social Care to co-locate with Dorset Police in the MASH. This role would be responsible for sharing with GPs and have access to the Dorset Care Record. In the interim I am aware that the Dorset Adult Access Team promptly streamlined their working practices in February 2022 to overcome the issue that resulted in the failure to share the PPN with the GP in the case of Ms Cole.”

    Source location

    2022-0033-Response-from-Dorset-Police_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 2022

    Open published response
  7. Gwent

    AI-generated summary

    Brian Wareham · 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 Wareham was diagnosed with oesophageal dysmotility, which worsened and prevented him from eating sufficiently to maintain his nutritional status; he died at St David’s Hospice on 2 November 2020. The report raised concerns about communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care, including uncertainty about his treatment approach and a breakdown in communication, trust and respect between clinicians.

    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 communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care. Brian Wareham had been admitted to hospital in May 2020 with ongoing symptoms of weight loss, dysphagia and general weakness. He was discharged in June 2020 with a package of care and the treating clinicians felt that his condition had stabilised. There was no immediate cure for Brian’s problems and he was provided with advice about a softer, more manageable diet. In evidence his GP (Dr ████████of the Richmond clinic in Newport) stated that he thought Brian should have remained in hospital, that he was not fit to be at home. Dr ████████ stated that he did not understand the relationship between Brian’s gastroenterology problems and his newly diagnosed lung cancer, specifically whether he was for active treatment or whether the approach was to be palliative. Given the GPs considerable concerns which he voiced with frustration and disdain, I questioned why he made no effort to try to address these problems by directly contacting the medical team in Nevill Hall Hospital responsible for Mr Wareham and who had in fact written to the GP practice at the time of his discharge. When these questions were put to Dr ████████he stated that he thought this would be futile and it appeared that there was a significant breakdown in communication, trust and respect between primary and secondary care. The current situation appears to leave vulnerable patients without appropriate information and support due to a breakdown in the relationship between clinicians. ”

    Source location

    Brian Wareham · 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 access to a medical consultant for clinical advice through the Flow Centre telephone line.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since 2020, major changes have taken place within ABUHB boundary due to Covid 19, but also due to the reorganisation of our Services and the opening of the Grange University Hospital. These changes have required us to develop methods and strategies to enhance communication at the interface between Primary and Secondary care. Some of the main changes we have made include:”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-Aneurin-Bevan-University-Health-Board_Published
    Page 3 · 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

    Launch direct-access telephone advice lines for urgent and outpatient queries through Consultant Connect.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since 2020, major changes have taken place within ABUHB boundary due to Covid 19, but also due to the reorganisation of our Services and the opening of the Grange University Hospital. These changes have required us to develop methods and strategies to enhance communication at the interface between Primary and Secondary care. Some of the main changes we have made include:”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-Aneurin-Bevan-University-Health-Board_Published
    Page 3 · 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

    Create a bypass-number directory enabling hospital teams to contact GP surgeries directly when immediately necessary.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since 2020, major changes have taken place within ABUHB boundary due to Covid 19, but also due to the reorganisation of our Services and the opening of the Grange University Hospital. These changes have required us to develop methods and strategies to enhance communication at the interface between Primary and Secondary care. Some of the main changes we have made include:”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-Aneurin-Bevan-University-Health-Board_Published
    Page 3 · 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

    Operate a Medical Examiner service with multidisciplinary panel review, including Primary Care input, to identify and review interface issues.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you will be aware, the Medical Examiner (ME) Service is now operating in Gwent with cases referred by the ME being reviewed by a Multidisciplinary Panel, which includes Primary Care input. This provides us with a further mechanism to identify and review any issues regarding the interface between Primary and Secondary care.”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-Aneurin-Bevan-University-Health-Board_Published
    Page 3 · 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

    Send GPs weekly updates from the Deputy Medical Director about key information and changes to Secondary Care Services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We also send all GPs a weekly message from the Deputy Medical Director, highlighting key information and any changes to Secondary Care Services to ensure Primary Care remain up to date on how to access and communicate with Specialist Services. Information on pathways, Secondary Care Services and advice lines is also obtainable on the ABUHB intranet, which is accessible to GPs through the NHS computer network. As part of our urgent care and outpatient transformation work streams, we aim to keep these resources up to date as Services evolve.”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-Aneurin-Bevan-University-Health-Board_Published
    Page 3 · 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

    Provide GPs with intranet access to information on pathways, Secondary Care Services and advice lines.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We also send all GPs a weekly message from the Deputy Medical Director, highlighting key information and any changes to Secondary Care Services to ensure Primary Care remain up to date on how to access and communicate with Specialist Services. Information on pathways, Secondary Care Services and advice lines is also obtainable on the ABUHB intranet, which is accessible to GPs through the NHS computer network. As part of our urgent care and outpatient transformation work streams, we aim to keep these resources up to date as Services evolve.”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-Aneurin-Bevan-University-Health-Board_Published
    Page 3 · 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

    Explore primary–secondary care communication options, identify case-specific barriers, address them, and ensure clinical staff know the available routes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As per section (6) – “Action should be taken”, I can confirm that this matter has been investigated within the practice. In addition, following a meeting between Dr ████████ and representatives of the Health Board on 2nd February 2022, we understand a further process is continuing within the Health Board, with which we are cooperating fully. As part of this process we have fully explored all current options and opportunities for communication between Primary and Secondary Care and have ensured that all clinical staff are aware of them. In particular we have explored specific obstacles to communication within this case and addressed them. We understand that there is an ongoing programme within the Health Board to further facilitate communication between primary and Secondary Care and we are engaging positively with that work.”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-The-Richmond-Clinic_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

    Continue cooperating with and positively engaging in the Health Board’s programme to facilitate primary–secondary care communication.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As per section (6) – “Action should be taken”, I can confirm that this matter has been investigated within the practice. In addition, following a meeting between Dr ████████ and representatives of the Health Board on 2nd February 2022, we understand a further process is continuing within the Health Board, with which we are cooperating fully. As part of this process we have fully explored all current options and opportunities for communication between Primary and Secondary Care and have ensured that all clinical staff are aware of them. In particular we have explored specific obstacles to communication within this case and addressed them. We understand that there is an ongoing programme within the Health Board to further facilitate communication between primary and Secondary Care and we are engaging positively with that work.”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-The-Richmond-Clinic_Published
    Page 1 · 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

    For community patients, the registered GP and Primary Care team have overall responsibility for medical care coordination.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For individuals in the community, the registered GP has overall responsibility for their medical care. The Primary Care team will therefore be the first point of contact for most health issues, and will take the role of coordinators in a patient’s health care management. However, we acknowledge that in these situations it can be difficult for Primary Care teams to ascertain who is the most appropriate single point of contact when needing support to care for individuals who have multiple complex health issues. Due to specialisation in hospital medicine, there may not be a single point of contact which requires Primary Care teams to be a point of continuity and coordination. There are multiple ways in which Primary Care teams can obtain information regarding an individual’s hospital care.”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-Aneurin-Bevan-University-Health-Board_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 clinical systems, letters, directories and switchboards provide GPs with sufficient access to hospital records, clinicians and support.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the Gwent area, GPs have access to the Clinical Workstation (CWS) system where all clinic letters and hospital records are stored. This enables a GP to review records and past/future appointments to ascertain which hospital clinicians are involved in an individual’s care. Clinic and Discharge letters would usually also be sent directly to a GP Practice, which will include the name of the responsible consultant and contact details for the secretary. Contact details for hospital based clinicians can be obtained through hospital telephony switchboards or via the NHS email address book, which is available to GPs. These sources of information and support would have been available to Dr ████████ when delivering care to Mr Wareham.”

    Source location

    2022-0010-Response-from-Aneurin-Bevan-University-Health-Board_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 January 2022

    Open published response
  8. Manchester City

    AI-generated summary

    Jude Daryl Lloyd · 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

    Jude Daryl Lloyd was found dead at home on 8 May 2019 and died from diabetic ketoacidosis. The report identified concerns about inadequate diabetes monitoring and management, capacity assessment, communication and care transfer between services, follow-up with primary care, clinical review, and record keeping.

    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

    Inadequate and incomplete transfer and communication from inpatient care to the CMHT

    Wider context from the report

    “c. The transfer and communication process from inpatient care to the CMHT was inadequate and incomplete. ”

    Source location

    Jude Daryl Lloyd · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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 make appropriate and regular GP contacts across inpatient care and discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “d. No appropriate contacts were made with the GP whilst the deceased was an in-patient to obtain relevant clinical information to assist in managing a serious physical health condition with potentially life threatening complications and assist in the discharge planning. Nor were regular appropriate contacts made with the GP after discharge which would have highlighted the absence of medical management for a serious physical health condition. ”

    Source location

    Jude Daryl Lloyd · 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

    Address coordination of diabetes management at discharge through the diabetes steering group.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The HbA1c is a measurement of control of blood glucose (glycaemic control) over the weeks prior to the test being taken so the HbA1c of 135 suggested extremely poor glycaemic control in the community whilst Mr Lloyd was under the care of his GP prior to admission. We agree that sadly, the plan to ask the GP to follow this up on discharge was unlikely to have led to any improvement in glycaemic control and was not a robust plan to manage this. We will address discharge diabetes management coordination via the diabetes steering group.”

    Source location

    2021-0329-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 October 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

    Employ physical-health nurses within CMHTs to complete annual physical-health assessments and communicate results to GPs, with Trust monitoring.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There is a physical health nurse employed within each of the CMHT’s who undertakes a physical health assessment, based on the Lester Tool, as a minimum annually. The Lester Tool helps frontline staff make assessments of cardiac and metabolic health, helping to cut mortality for people with mental illnesses. Results of these assessments and any investigations are communicated to the GP via letter. The completion of these physical health assessments and communication with the GP are monitored by the Trust.”

    Source location

    2021-0329-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 October 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

    Make diabetes care a principal Trust quality-improvement project, led by the physical-health care group and supported by primary-care connections.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Going forward the Trust physical health care group will reinstate a Diabetes workstream to continue to improve the management of people with diabetes across the Trust. We will ensure that the Diabetes workstream have oversight of compliance with training about diabetes management and are involved in the management and risk analysis incidents around diabetes care. We intend to make the care of someone with diabetes as one of our main quality improvement care projects in the organisation that will be led by the physical health care group who will act as the lead for this. This will involve further enhancing the connections and communication with primary care and will involve the new primary healthcare practitioners, which are new joint posts working across the new primary care networks and GMMH.”

    Source location

    2021-0329-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 October 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

    Audit CMHT use of care-record interfaces for communication with GPs and share the audit and resulting action plan with the Trust audit committee.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “GMMH services across Manchester have access to the GM care record that means they can check when someone last saw their GP. The CMHT’s also, as outlined in the Trust RCA report access Graphnet, an interface system between Primary and Secondary Care. Any results or investigations carried out by GMMH staff are uploaded to Graphnet as well as being sent to the GP in a letter. The CMHT staff can access the system to see any results uploaded by the GP. The CMHT manager has carried out audits to give assurance that this system is being used to communicate with the GP’s. The audit and any resulting actions plan will be shared at the Trust audit committee.”

    Source location

    2021-0329-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 5 · response
    Published 13 October 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

    Existing discharge CPA requirements in the CMHT procedure and clinical-record audits are relied upon to address discharge planning compliance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust’s investigation report detailed that Mr Lloyd’s Care Coordinator attended the discharge Care Programme Approach (CPA) meeting and participated in agreeing the discharge plan but did not complete a discharge CPA plan in line with Trust expectations when a patient is discharged from hospital. These expectations are already covered in the Trust CMHT Standard Operating Procedure and are monitored through audit of clinical records during management supervision of staff.”

    Source location

    2021-0329-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 October 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

    Existing CPA policy requirements, staff supervision and annual audits are relied upon to monitor communication with GPs about physical health.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “When under the care of the Community Mental Health Team the service user’s physical health should be included as part of the holistic assessment and resulting care plan, the GP should be involved in this process. The Trust Care Programme Approach policy outlines the process for contacting all people involved in a patient’s care, at least annually, as part of the CPA review and update of the care plan. The contact should review what input the person has had in relation to their physical health and whether arrangements need to be made for them to see their GP, a member of staff from physical health pathway or another professional in relation to their physical health needs. The patient GP should be invited to attend the CPA review or asked to provide written feedback for the review.”

    Source location

    2021-0329-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 4 · response
    Published 13 October 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

    Existing shared-care-record systems, GP correspondence, supervision and audits are relied upon to support communication about service users’ physical health.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “GMMH services across Manchester have access to the GM care record that means they can check when someone last saw their GP. The CMHT’s also, as outlined in the Trust RCA report access Graphnet, an interface system between Primary and Secondary Care. Any results or investigations carried out by GMMH staff are uploaded to Graphnet as well as being sent to the GP in a letter. The CMHT staff can access the system to see any results uploaded by the GP. The CMHT manager has carried out audits to give assurance that this system is being used to communicate with the GP’s. The audit and any resulting actions plan will be shared at the Trust audit committee.”

    Source location

    2021-0329-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 5 · response
    Published 13 October 2021

    Open published response
  9. Manchester City

    AI-generated summary

    Antony Declan Schofield · 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

    Antony Declan Schofield, who had recurrent depressive disorder and a history of suicidal thoughts and behaviour, was found dead at home on 27 August 2019 after taking an overdose. The report identified concerns about incomplete risk assessment before discharge, inadequate transfer and communication to the community team, insufficient review of escalating suicide risk, missed opportunities to assess changes in presentation, and deficiencies in records, auditing and the subsequent investigation.

    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

    Inadequate transfer and communication from inpatient care to the HBTT

    Wider context from the report

    “1. a. No thorough comprehensive risk review was undertaken by a member of staff who had detailed knowledge of the deceased prior to his discharge from the inpatient unit. This was not identified before he left the ward and it was not discovered by the HBTT when they took over his care. b. The transfer and communication process from inpatient care to the HBTT appeared inadequate. b. There was no clear plan to deal with the risk of his condition deteriorating and him experiencing significantly more suicidal thoughts as well as obtaining the means by which to kill himself. It is well known that a history of suicidal thoughts and actions increases the risk when they are repeated. c. When he disclosed that he bought ████████ there was no risk review planning involving a senior HBTT clinician which was then monitored even when he indicated that he had received it. d. On several occasions before he died the deceased saw members of the HBTT but they failed to demonstrate professional curiosity and enquire about his suicidal thoughts and plans. There were either adequate or no records about this. e. There were a number of missed opportunities for the HBTT to assess changes in his presentation and risk profile. f. There was no robust audit system for checking compliance with the trust own policies and protocols in particular with regard to medical record keeping, risk assessments and reviews. g. The GMMH SUI investigation report contained several factual errors and misinterpretations. It was only discovered at the inquest hearing that one of the last members of HBTT staff to see the deceased had given an account that was not the same as given to their line manager. This meant the all the lessons for future care and planning were not learnt. There was inadequate overview of the report before it was signed off. ”

    Source location

    Antony Declan Schofield · 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

    Hold daily multidisciplinary meetings on Safire Ward with HBTT participation to discuss patients, care plans, and discharge requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “During the Trust investigation interviews with staff from the inpatient ward and HBTT highlighted that HBTT staff did attend the ward to review Mr Schofield prior to his discharge and were satisfied that they would be able to support Mr Schofield following discharge. Whilst this discussion to plan Mr Schofield’s transfer was not documented in the clinical record, as would be expected, the staff were confident that information required to support his transfer had been shared verbally. To support the communication process from the Inpatient Unit to HBTT there is now in place on Safire a daily Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meeting held to discuss all patients on the ward and the plans for their care and treatment going forward. HBTT staff attend this meeting daily and can discuss with the inpatient MDT any discharge plans and what is required to support the discharge.”

    Source location

    2021-0324-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 5 October 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

    HBTT staff reviewed the patient before discharge and considered that the information needed to support transfer had been shared verbally.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “During the Trust investigation interviews with staff from the inpatient ward and HBTT highlighted that HBTT staff did attend the ward to review Mr Schofield prior to his discharge and were satisfied that they would be able to support Mr Schofield following discharge. Whilst this discussion to plan Mr Schofield’s transfer was not documented in the clinical record, as would be expected, the staff were confident that information required to support his transfer had been shared verbally. To support the communication process from the Inpatient Unit to HBTT there is now in place on Safire a daily Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meeting held to discuss all patients on the ward and the plans for their care and treatment going forward. HBTT staff attend this meeting daily and can discuss with the inpatient MDT any discharge plans and what is required to support the discharge.”

    Source location

    2021-0324-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Mental-Health_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 5 October 2021

    Open published response
  10. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Norma Rushworth · 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

    Norma Rushworth underwent surgery for diverticulitis and was later readmitted for emergency surgery after developing an abdominal dehiscence associated with an unidentified wound infection. She deteriorated after developing a chest infection and suffering a cardiac arrest, and died at Tameside General Hospital on 10 October 2020. Concerns included limited support and monitoring after discharge, unclear communication with community health professionals and family, and delayed recognition of her deterioration in the community, with pandemic restrictions contributing to communication difficulties.

    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 clearly convey community management advice and risks to community health professionals and families

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The inquest heard that following her discharge back into the community after surgery support and monitoring was limited notwithstanding how vulnerable she was; the complexity of her surgery and the risk she presented. Advice re management of a patient such as her in the community and risks and management of them was not conveyed clearly to community health professionals and to her family. Covid restrictions meant that communication had been difficult, and the written documentation did not cover the challenges this caused. Her deteriorating health in the community was not as a result recognised at an early stage. ”

    Source location

    Norma Rushworth · 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

    Communicate appropriate advice and guidance to relevant providers to increase staff awareness of available materials.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Actions taken or being taken to prevent reoccurrence across Greater Manchester.”

    Source location

    Response from Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026