Epilepsy, 19 Sep 2013 – 19 Jun 2026

Epilepsy-related Prevention of Future Deaths reports

All dates19 Sep 2013 – 7 Sep 2026

Custom range

Based on PFD publication date. Dates are available up to the published snapshot: 7 Sep 2026. Preset periods end on this date.

90All reports 19SUDEP 68Non-SUDEP

Select SUDEP or Non-SUDEP to filter concerns and reports. 3 reports could not be assigned and remain in All only. Counts are PFD reports, not deaths.

About this dataset

We searched all 6,433 reports in the published corpus using a fixed text-search method, then assessed 317 candidates against source-based inclusion criteria. Ninety reports were included. Epilepsy had to be materially relevant to the death or a substantive coroner’s concern; incidental mentions were excluded.

Eligibility and SUDEP assignment were assessed with GPT-5.6 Sol and checked for valid source quotations. Assignment uses a balance-of-probabilities threshold: SUDEP or non-SUDEP must be more likely than not on the report’s evidence. The exact term SUDEP need not appear. Genuinely unclear eligible reports remain in All only. These are model-assisted documentary assessments, not independently validated clinical diagnoses.

The search can miss reports with sparse terminology or incomplete source text. This dataset does not represent all epilepsy deaths. Recurring concerns and responses are taken from the existing published evidence. Published corpus snapshot: 7 September 2026. Cohort selection updated 5 November 2026. The title shows the first and last included reports’ publication dates.

Reports over time

Matching reports published each year within the selected date range.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Matching reports sent to each recipient.

Department for Transport3
Emsworth Surgery1

Most commonly raised concerns

All classifications 90 reports 19 Sep 2013 – 7 Sep 2026

  1. Unreliable seizure care and managementControls dedicated to recognising, assessing, monitoring, responding to and managing seizures are not reliably provided.9 reportsSelected
  2. Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsClinical and care records are incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent, unavailable or otherwise unreliable for safe care.7 reportsSelected
  3. Unsafe medication administrationA recurring failure of the medication-administration system to ensure that medicines are administered safely, accurately, promptly and as prescribed.6 reportsSelected
  4. Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted uponRecurring deficiency in the end-to-end management of clinical investigation results, including their availability, transmission, checking, review, interpretation, follow-up and escalation when needed.4 reportsSelected
  5. Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safetyDriver licensing systems do not reliably identify, record, review or restrict drivers whose inexperience, health or vehicle-related risk requires additional safeguards.4 reportsSelected
  6. Inadequate staff competence to provide first aidReports identify an unsafe first-aid capability condition across healthcare, care, custody and other staff. The recurring concern is the unreliability of staff competence to recognise emergencies and provide appropriate first aid, rather than any single training, refresher, assessment or practical-performance failure.4 reportsSelected
  7. Unreliable hospital discharge processesHospital discharge does not reliably bring together planning, clinical readiness, relevant organisations, safe execution and required follow-up.4 reportsSelected
  8. Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesRecurring concern that clinically important guidance, decisions and patient information are not kept accurate, current and available to the clinicians and emergency services who need them.3 reportsSelected
  9. Failure to provide required medication promptly when clinically neededThe anchor identifies delayed prescribing of a patient's usual medication after an unexpected admission, while another report identifies delayed prescribing and non-provision of urgent therapeutic medication. These support a recurring concern about timely provision of clinically required medication rather than only the anchor's admission or prescribing-step failure.3 reportsSelected
  10. Failure to provide timely clinical follow-up after medication prescribingPrescribed medication is not reliably followed up for effectiveness, safety, collection, adherence and patient response.3 reportsSelected
  11. Failure to seek medical attention when a person's condition warrants itReports identify an unreliable escalation control in which care staff or other responders do not promptly seek medical or paramedic assistance when a person's injury, pain, fall or deterioration warrants clinical attention.3 reportsSelected
  12. Insufficient police training for safe recognition and response to mental-health and behaviour-related medical crisesReports identify insufficient police training to recognise and respond safely to mental-health crises and behaviour-related medical emergencies.3 reportsSelected
  13. Insufficient qualified healthcare staffing capacityHealthcare services lack enough appropriately qualified staff to provide the required clinical coverage and patient care safely for the workload, acuity and specialist needs.3 reportsSelected
  14. Unreliable DVLA medical fitness notification arrangementsThe anchor identifies limited professional awareness and uncertain effectiveness of guidance for notifying the DVLA about medically relevant driving risks. A different report identifies clinicians failing to advise patients with cough syncope to stop driving and notify the DVLA, while another identifies failure to notify the DVLA of relevant medical conditions. These support the named DVLA medical-fitness notification process rather than guidance awareness alone.3 reportsSelected
  15. Unreliable communication of patient-care information between clinical staffClinical staff responsible for the same patient's care do not reliably exchange relevant information about care, treatment and risk.3 reportsSelected
  16. Unreliable healthcare patient transfer processesHealthcare transfers do not reliably provide the procedures, responsibility, documentation and clinical information needed for safe movement and continuity of care.3 reportsSelected
  17. Unreliable mental health referral pathwaysReports identify different failures within the mental health referral process, including referrals not being made when indicated, received referrals not being actioned, and frontline practitioners lacking clarity about when and where to refer. These support a recurring concern with the reliability of mental health referral pathways rather than any single referral or awareness failure.3 reportsSelected
  18. Unreliable patient observation arrangementsPatient observation systems do not reliably set, support and deliver the observation level required by assessed safety risk.3 reportsSelected
  19. Unsafe interoperability between prison custody and healthcare proceduresReports identify failures in the bounded interface between prison custody, contracted custody providers and healthcare services, where procedures, responsibilities and safety-relevant information do not operate together reliably.3 reportsSelected
  20. Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionableRecurring concern that electronic patient-record systems do not reliably present, preserve, share or prompt action on clinically relevant information across the patient’s care.2 reportsSelected
  21. Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and familiesReports identify unsafe communication between care providers and families, including failures to convey risks, care instructions, concerns or other information needed to support safe care and decision-making.2 reportsSelected
  22. Failure to conduct required welfare checks on people in distressThe anchor identifies a risk that care home staff will not check a resident in distress, while a different canonical report identifies failure to conduct a later welfare check on a person left in potential medical distress. Together these support a recurring concern about welfare checks not being completed when a person may require assistance.2 reportsSelected
  23. Failure to ensure safe prisoner transfersRecurring concern that the end-to-end prisoner transfer process is unreliable, leaving transferred prisoners exposed to unmanaged risks or interruptions in essential support.2 reportsSelected
  24. Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learningDifferent reports identify failures of reporting, review and learning arrangements to retain, recognise and address substantive or recurring patient-safety issues, rather than merely failures to complete one specific corrective action.2 reportsSelected
  25. Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisionsDifferent reports identify missing or inadequate records explaining the rationale and evidential basis for consequential decisions, including the anchor’s crucial decisions and comparable mental-capacity, NRPF and transfer decisions. The shared concern is unreliable rationale documentation for decisions that affect safety, accountability and continuity of care, rather than any one decision type or record system.2 reportsSelected
  26. Failure to reliably learn from medication incidents and implement safeguardsThe medication incident learning process is unreliable: incidents are not consistently followed up or reviewed to identify, communicate and implement safeguards that protect patients from recurrence.2 reportsSelected
  27. Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute clinical deteriorationClinical deterioration is not reliably recognised, monitored, escalated and acted upon with the urgency it requires.2 reportsSelected
  28. Failure to reliably refer patients to required specialist servicesThe anchor identifies a required physiotherapy referral that was not completed. A different report identifies delayed referrals to physiotherapy, occupational therapy, dietetics and Parkinson’s specialist services. Together these support an end-to-end concern with required specialist referrals not being made promptly and reliably, rather than a concern limited to one physiotherapy referral.2 reportsSelected
  29. Failure to secure and control medicationReports identify medication as remaining accessible, unsecured or inadequately controlled, creating risks of misuse, overdose, theft or access by people other than the intended patient.2 reportsSelected
  30. Inadequate control of illicit substance use and supply in secure institutionsThe anchor identifies an ongoing failure to mitigate illicit substance entry, distribution and use in a secure hospital, while assertions from different reports identify continuing illicit-drug influx, widespread access and weak supply-reduction controls in prisons. These distinct manifestations support a bounded concern about controlling illicit substances in secure institutional settings, rather than only room searches, drug testing or a prison-specific strategy.2 reportsSelected
  31. Inadequate controls on contraband mobile phones in prisonsDifferent reports identify failures in the prison control system for preventing and mitigating access to contraband mobile phones, including their easy availability to prisoners and their use to facilitate drug dealing and other prison-security risks.2 reportsSelected
  32. Inadequate recording of medication prescribing decisionsReports identify unreliable medication prescribing records that can obscure prescribing status, rationale, changes or safety-critical decisions and thereby allow unsafe medication to be prescribed or administered.2 reportsSelected
  33. Incomplete clinical history-takingReports identify an unsafe clinical assessment condition in which relevant patient history is not obtained sufficiently to support recognition of symptoms, risks and appropriate care.2 reportsSelected
  34. Unreliable Care Programme Approach care coordinationReports identify different failures within the named Care Programme Approach, including the absence of a structured medication review and failures to allocate coordinators, complete required reviews, maintain care plans and follow up patients. Together these support a recurring concern with the reliable operation of CPA care coordination rather than medication review alone.2 reportsSelected
  35. Unreliable RIO clinical-record functionsThe anchor identifies an unclear timeliness standard for RIO entries, while different reports identify failures of RIO to support complete information capture, cross-team access and usable observation records. Together these support a recurring concern with the reliability of the named RIO clinical-record system rather than only one entry-timing or documentation manifestation.2 reportsSelected
  36. Unreliable access to emergency communicationReports identify failures in dedicated emergency communication arrangements that can delay summoning or contacting emergency help.2 reportsSelected
  37. Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPsRecurring deficiency in the medication-information exchange process between services and GPs, including information needed to maintain supplies, assess prescribing safety and support continuity of treatment.2 reportsSelected
  38. Unreliable escalation by care staff for required medical attentionCare staff do not reliably recognise and escalate deterioration, pain or other safety concerns to obtain timely medical assessment or advice.2 reportsSelected
  39. Unreliable implementation of medication changesReports identify different failures in the medication-change process, including failure to act on a prescribed reduction, failure to ensure carers acknowledge changes, and difficulty implementing specialist-directed changes accurately. Together these support the wider unsafe condition that medication changes are not reliably implemented across prescribing, communication and follow-up controls.2 reportsSelected
  40. Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated careThe anchor identifies absent agreed communication means and inaccessible shared patient information between mental health agencies. Other canonical reports identify relevant risk information not being shared between agencies and poor inter-agency information sharing preventing coordinated care, supporting a recurring concern with the reliability of inter-agency care information sharing rather than only the anchor's repository or communication-channel failure.2 reportsSelected
  41. Unreliable management of medication doses not takenThe anchor identifies missing guidance for monitoring prescribed medication that self-administering patients do not take when dispensed. A different report identifies inconsistent procedures for responding when service users refuse or do not take medication. Together these support a recurring concern with the reliability of detecting, monitoring and escalating omitted or refused medication doses, rather than a concern limited to one guidance document or one home's procedure.2 reportsSelected
  42. Unreliable medication dosage verification and communicationReports identify unsafe failures to ensure that medication dosages are accurately verified, clarified and communicated across prescribing, dispensing and administration activities.2 reportsSelected
  43. Unreliable observation of people in custodyThe anchor report identifies failure to transfer and replicate medically required observation levels when a detained person moves into GEO AMEY custody, while a different report identifies uncertainty about whether the correct observation level, including constant watch, was provided to a person in prison custody. Together these support a recurring concern about the reliability of the custody observation process rather than only one handover or level-setting failure.2 reportsSelected
  44. Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custodyDifferent reports identify inaccurate, delayed, anticipatory or falsified records of required observations, including 15-minute observations in prison custody and patient-care settings. The shared unsafe condition is that observation records do not reliably reflect when and how observations were actually conducted, rather than any one observation frequency, recording location or electronic system.2 reportsSelected
  45. Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondenceReports identify failures across the incoming clinical-correspondence process, including failure to identify GP medication-review requests, failure to bring action-requiring correspondence to medical staff, and correspondence being filed without GP review or action. The shared unsafe condition is that clinically significant correspondence may not reliably reach the responsible clinician or trigger the required clinical response.2 reportsSelected
  46. Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systemsDifferent reports identify failures in the operation of CCTV used as a safety control, including absent staff access arrangements, inadequate coverage, non-working cameras, insufficient monitoring and unclear staff instructions. Together these support the reliability of safety CCTV monitoring as the parent concern rather than any single access, coverage, equipment or training failure.2 reportsSelected
  47. Unreliable urgent mental health referral and assessment pathwaysUrgent mental-health referral pathways do not reliably secure timely access, coordination and specialist assessment.2 reportsSelected
  48. Unreliable welfare-check processes for people whose health is of concernThe anchor identifies unclear purpose and use of the welfare sheet for monitoring prisoners whose health is of concern. A separate report identifies inconsistent criteria for what constitutes a welfare check and when it is recorded. Together these support a recurring concern with the reliability of the bounded welfare-check process, rather than only the sheet or recording component.2 reportsSelected
  49. Unsafe cell-sharing decisions for prisonersRecurring deficiencies in the prison cell-sharing risk system can leave prisoners exposed to unsafe pairings or prevent them from understanding changes affecting their cell-sharing status.2 reportsSelected
  50. Unsafe medication prescribingReports identify unsafe prescribing decisions in which the medication, indication, dose or relevant clinical circumstances are not adequately evaluated before prescribing.2 reportsSelected

Reports matching this recurring concern

19 Sep 2013 – 7 Sep 2026 · 4 reports

Classification: all classificationsRecurring concern: Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safety
Reset

Only concerns related to the selected recurring concern and their linked actions and positions are shown. Other concerns are counted within each report.

Actions and positions describe what recipients stated in published responses. Select a statement to read its source wording.

  1. Cumbria

    AI-generated summary

    James Scott COATES · 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 Scott Coates died after a head-on collision while driving around a bend at approximately 90 mph on an unlit rural road, where 75% of the Cats Eye reflectors were not functioning. He sustained unsurvivable injuries and was declared dead at the roadside. The principal concern was that drivers with potentially significant conditions, including epilepsy and cannabis use, may not notify the DVLA, while legislation places the reporting responsibility on licence holders rather than doctors, which was considered insufficiently robust to ensure proper licence review.

    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

    Insufficiently robust arrangements for ensuring that drivers with serious conditions have their licences properly reviewed

    Wider context from the report

    “I previously sent you a Prevention of Future Deaths Report (in relation to the deaths of Neil Errington and Gareth and Patricia Evans) highlighting my concern that the expectation that drivers would self-report their conditions (which arises as a matter of legislation) was not being followed. The evidence in this inquest provides further cause for concern. Once again, the evidence is that a person with potentially significant conditions never notified the DVLA, and that his doctors did not draw it to the DVLA's attention because legislation places the onus on licence holders and not their doctors. I remain of the view that this is insufficiently robust to ensure that drivers with serious conditions are not having their licences properly reviewed. ”

    Source location

    James Scott COATES · 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

    Failure of drivers to self-report potentially significant conditions to the DVLA

    Wider context from the report

    “I previously sent you a Prevention of Future Deaths Report (in relation to the deaths of Neil Errington and Gareth and Patricia Evans) highlighting my concern that the expectation that drivers would self-report their conditions (which arises as a matter of legislation) was not being followed. The evidence in this inquest provides further cause for concern. Once again, the evidence is that a person with potentially significant conditions never notified the DVLA, and that his doctors did not draw it to the DVLA's attention because legislation places the onus on licence holders and not their doctors. I remain of the view that this is insufficiently robust to ensure that drivers with serious conditions are not having their licences properly reviewed. ”

    Source location

    James Scott COATES · 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

    Deliver educational sessions for healthcare professionals encouraging direct DVLA notifications when patients cannot or will not notify themselves.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I can confirm that the DVLA is engaging with healthcare professionals and has delivered a series of educational sessions to encourage clinicians to notify the DVLA directly where a patient is unable or unwilling to do so themselves. Further engagement with regulatory bodies, clinical networks and healthcare professionals will continue to better understand any concerns or issues that may be preventing notifications being made to the DVLA by doctors and driving licence holders.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 2026

    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 engagement with regulatory bodies, clinical networks and healthcare professionals to identify barriers to DVLA notifications.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I can confirm that the DVLA is engaging with healthcare professionals and has delivered a series of educational sessions to encourage clinicians to notify the DVLA directly where a patient is unable or unwilling to do so themselves. Further engagement with regulatory bodies, clinical networks and healthcare professionals will continue to better understand any concerns or issues that may be preventing notifications being made to the DVLA by doctors and driving licence holders.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 2026

    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

    Raise public awareness of the legal duty to notify the DVLA about medical conditions and the consequences of non-notification.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The actions being taken by my Department and the DVLA to address the issues raised in this Prevention of Future Deaths Report include reviewing the self-declaration forms for notifying the DVLA of a medical condition, raising public awareness of the legal duty to notify medical conditions to the DVLA and the consequences of not doing so and reinforcing the existing General Medical Council guidance which advises doctors when to notify the DVLA where a patient continues to drive despite being advised to notify the DVLA.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 2026

    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

    Reinforce existing General Medical Council guidance on notifying the DVLA when patients continue driving despite advice to notify.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The actions being taken by my Department and the DVLA to address the issues raised in this Prevention of Future Deaths Report include reviewing the self-declaration forms for notifying the DVLA of a medical condition, raising public awareness of the legal duty to notify medical conditions to the DVLA and the consequences of not doing so and reinforcing the existing General Medical Council guidance which advises doctors when to notify the DVLA where a patient continues to drive despite being advised to notify the DVLA.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 2026

    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 and improve self-declaration forms and associated notification processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The actions being taken by my Department and the DVLA to address the issues raised in this Prevention of Future Deaths Report include reviewing the self-declaration forms for notifying the DVLA of a medical condition, raising public awareness of the legal duty to notify medical conditions to the DVLA and the consequences of not doing so and reinforcing the existing General Medical Council guidance which advises doctors when to notify the DVLA where a patient continues to drive despite being advised to notify the DVLA.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 2026

    Open published response
  2. Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

    AI-generated summary

    Sheila Margaret Edwards · 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

    Sheila Margaret Edwards was a front-seat passenger in a car whose driver became unresponsive, leading to a head-on collision on 8 January 2023. The report identified concerns that drivers with dementia and other conditions may not recognise or report them to the DVLA, creating risks to other road users, and that such conditions may be under-recorded in collision data.

    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 drivers with dementia to self-report medical conditions to the DVLA

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Dementia affects approximately half a million sufferers in the United Kingdom of which the DVLA has only been notified of approximately 30,000 drivers. It would appear that there is significant underreporting of drivers who may suffer from dementia 2. The current system for vehicle licensing relies upon the self-awareness of a driver and their ability to self-report medical conditions to the DVLA. A system that relies upon the self-awareness of a person applying for a driving licence to self-report a medical condition of dementia where the condition itself is characterised by a lack of self-awareness is inherently unsafe and exposes other road users to the risk of death or serious injury ”

    Source location

    Sheila Margaret Edwards · 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

    Failure to report multiple medical conditions requiring DVLA monitoring

    Wider context from the report

    “5. In this case, the driver suffered from focal epilepsy, which was the primary cause of the collision resulting Sheila Edwards' death. However, the memory deficit caused by dementia resulted in a lack of awareness of an underlying neurological condition. In such cases there is a substantial risk that neither of the conditions will be reported to the DVLA for monitoring. The result is that a driver with two conditions that should be monitored by the DVLA who is both unaware of their illnesses and the need to report themselves to the DVLA. This creates a substantial risk to other road users. ”

    Source location

    Sheila Margaret Edwards · 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

    Consider research and evidence, including any additional research needed, to inform potential future changes to the driver licensing system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Officials are considering the research and evidence provided and what additional research may be needed to inform potential future changes. These considerations include the system of self-declaration and the potential for the introduction of age-based testing. Consideration is also being given to policy options as part of the Government’s Road Safety Strategy, which is being developed and the details of which will be provided in due course.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 3 · response
    Published 24 April 2025

    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 working with healthcare professionals, driving organisations and regulatory bodies to identify and assess people who pose road-safety risks because of unrecognised medical conditions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My Department will continue to work with healthcare professionals, driving organisations and regulatory bodies to enhance the safety of our roads and ensure that those who pose a risk to road safety due to lack of awareness of their medical condition are appropriately identified and assessed.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 4 · response
    Published 24 April 2025

    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 engaging healthcare professionals and regulatory bodies to identify and address obstacles to reporting conditions when patients lack insight or capacity.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Although the process for establishing that a driver meets the medical standards for driving is based on self-declaration, I recognise that this may be difficult for those drivers with conditions that may impair their insight into their health status. My department will continue to engage with healthcare professionals and their regulatory bodies to identify and address any obstacles that may hinder the reporting process, particularly where their patient lacks the insight or capacity to inform the DVLA of their condition themselves.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 24 April 2025

    Open published response
  3. Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew BIDDLECOMBE · 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

    Andrew BIDDLECOMBE died on 10 July 2020 after the motor car he was driving collided with a sign-post and rolled over, causing fatal head and neck injuries. It could not be ascertained whether he suffered a medical episode or whether poor eyesight and mobility hindered him in avoiding the collision. The concerns included that he had not been advised about the impact of his medical conditions on safe driving or the legal requirement to notify the DVLA, and that the practice did not inform the DVLA of relevant medical conditions.

    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 inform the DVLA of medical conditions relevant to safe driving

    Wider context from the report

    “The deceased was 70 years of age. The deceased had several medical conditions including Parkinson’s disease; had suffered possible epileptic seizures; had bilateral posterior capsular opacity. The deceased was known to have problematic double vision and was partially sighted in his right eye. The deceased was known to have poor mobility. The deceased was prescribed medications namely Ipninia XL a medication with a recognised side-effect of sudden sleep onset episodes and Ramipril a medication with recognised side-effects of blurred vision, confusion and dizziness. It was known that the deceased was a current driver, noting the Parkinson’s review in February 2020. The deceased had not been advised of the impact of his medical conditions on his ability to drive safely nor had he been advised of the legal requirement to notify the DVLA of his medical conditions. The practice did not inform the DVLA of the deceased’s medical conditions relevant to the deceased’s ability to drive safely. ”

    Source location

    Andrew BIDDLECOMBE · 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 patients with epilepsy or Parkinson’s disease to remind them of DVLA notification responsibilities and identify current drivers for record updates.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Emsworth Surgery have undertaken a significant event analysis as part of the action arising from the Regulation 28 Report received. We have reviewed the templates that could be used for chronic disease review to ensure there are questions relevant to the patient’s driving status. We have also written to all our patients on the Epilepsy and Parkinson’s Disease register to remind them of their responsibilities to inform the DVLA of their diagnosis. We have asked the patients on these registers to inform us if they are current drivers so we can ensure their records are up to date. Finally, we have sent a medication leaflet to all patients on Ropinirole detailing possible side effects including sudden drowsiness to remind patients of these and the importance of reporting side effects.”

    Source location

    2021-0053-Response-from-Emsworth-Surgery_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 1 March 2021

    Open published response
  4. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    William Edward TURNER · 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

    William Edward TURNER, aged 74, died at the scene after a multi-vehicle collision on 8 October 2019, when a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction went out of control and caused a head-on collision. The report raised concern about whether the driving-licence surrender periods for people with epilepsy should be revisited or reviewed in light of the circumstances.

    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

    Potential inadequacy of driving-licence surrender time frames for seizure risk

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The time frames of 6 months and 12 months for surrender of the drivers licence were provided in the Regulations, which are framed and from time to time amended pursuant to recommendations of the Secretary of State for Transport’s Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Disorders of the Nervous System, which you chair. (4) Is there scope for re-visiting these time frames in the light of the facts of this case, or at least reviewing them in the light of this case? ”

    Source location

    William Edward TURNER · 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

    Ask the medical advisory panel to review the required seizure-free period before driving licence reinstatement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The rules governing epilepsy and seizures are regularly reviewed by the medical experts on Secretary of State for Transport’s Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Disorders of the Nervous System. As road safety is our priority, I will ask the panel to review the period of time required off driving before someone who has suffered a seizure can regain their driving licence.”

    Source location

    2020-0209-Response-from-the-DVLA_Redacted.pdf
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 December 2020

    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 12-month seizure-free standard and treatment, appointment and reporting declarations are considered sufficient to ensure only low-risk drivers receive licences.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It may help if I explain that for epilepsy, the fitness to drive standards are based on the risk of seizure recurrence while driving. When considering the appropriate health standards for driving, a balance needs to be made between road safety and the needs of drivers who experience seizures.”

    Source location

    2020-0209-Response-from-the-DVLA_Redacted.pdf
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 December 2020

    Open published response

Export data

Your Excel file will include all 4 matching reports.

Classification: all classifications19 Sep 2013 – 7 Sep 2026 (Publication date)Recurring concern: Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safety
Choose the tabs to include