Recurring concern

Unreliable information about funding routes for required care and monitoring

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 12 Mar 2014•Latest report 28 May 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures to identify, explain, signpost or communicate applicable funding routes for required care, support or clinically necessary monitoring to patients, carers or members of the public, including information needed by people who may have difficulty advocating for themselves.

Not included

  • Excludes failures to provide funding, approve applications or arrange care after the applicable funding route has been clearly explained; those are substantive funding or provision failures.
  • Excludes generic service-access, care-assessment or care-package deficiencies where funding-route information is not the unsafe condition.
  • Excludes generic communication, accessibility or advocacy failures unless they directly impair explanation or signposting of funding routes for required care or monitoring.
  • Excludes funding arrangements for unrelated administrative, educational or non-care services.
Reports
2

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
2

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
1

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.

Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust1
NHS England1
NHS Essex Integrated Care Board1
Swindon Borough Council1

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. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Lacey Carole Anne HEATH · 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

    Lacey Carole Anne HEATH died on 16 February 2025 after collapsing at home and suffering cardiac arrest en route to hospital. The death followed thrombosis and complete stenosis of her mechanical aortic valve in the context of sub-therapeutic anticoagulation. Concerns included difficulty maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation, lack of access to affordable at-home monitoring, absence of a funding application, insufficient medical review or haematology referral, and inadequate clinical records.

    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 explain available funding to the patient

    Wider context from the report

    “5. No application for funding was made on behalf of Ms Heath by the Trust nor was this explained to Ms Heath who a very quiet, shy lady who always relied on her very loving family to assist her with appointments and could not advocate for herself. There was no consideration if Ms Heath had any learning difficulties and it was noted that there was a developmental delay in her medical records. Evidence at the inquest was Ms Heath experienced this as clinicians not caring about her and she became very despondent about the failure to achieve a therapeutic range. ”

    Source location

    Lacey Carole Anne HEATH · 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

    Establish an escalation process for clinically required anticoagulation monitoring equipment or consumables when financial barriers arise, including funding guidance, staff communication and application audits.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “By the end of September 2026 we will have a process for escalating cases where recommended anticoagulation monitoring equipment or consumables may be clinically required but financial barriers are identified. This will include signposting to available funding routes, individual funding consideration, charitable support or commissioner discussion where applicable.”

    Source location

    Response from Mid & South Essex NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 6 August 2026

    Open published response

  2. Wiltshire and Swindon

    AI-generated summary

    Wendy Bernadine BROWN · 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

    Wendy Bernadine BROWN had suffered from depression and had been the full-time carer of her severely disabled granddaughter. After a period of approximately 18 months without support or respite, Wendy died by hanging at her home during the late evening of 27 August into the morning of 28 August 2013. The concerns included delays and gaps in adult social care support, the adequacy of signposting and funding information, the timeliness of processing care applications, and the availability of appeal routes.

    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 signposting of Adult Care Public Services and funding routes

    Wider context from the report

    “a) During the course of the Inquest I heard how Swindon Borough Council outsourced their Adult Care to an organisation called SEQOL and that that organisation commenced effective operation in November 2011 with relevant social workers transferring under the Transfer Undertaking Regulations to the new organisation. I heard evidence from the Interim Company Secretary at SEQOL and in relation to the delay as regards the implementation of care packages and I was concerned to learn that some 18 months effectively elapsed where Wendy was effectively solely responsible for the care of ████ her severely disabled granddaughter, without respite care or care support. I am concerned as regards the adequacy of the measures taken by the commissioners to ensure that relevant Adult Care Public Services are effectively signposted so that the public are aware of available services and more importantly that the funding routes are also highlighted. The system of social adult care is a complicated maze and I have tried to keep this concern as simple as possible. I would be grateful if you could please review the matter having regard to this particular case with a view to establishing whether or not there are any lessons to be learned following the death of Wendy. I understand that no review has been undertaken to date and I am concerned that such delay could place another carer under similar strain and that that scenario could directly contribute to another person’s death if they were then to take their own life whilst packages were being arranged. ”

    Source location

    Wendy Bernadine BROWN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026