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.

Care Quality Commission1
Department of Health and Social Care1
Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1
NHS England1
The Children's Trust1

Most commonly raised concerns

SUDEP 19 reports 19 Sep 2013 – 7 Sep 2026

Reset
  1. Unreliable seizure care and managementControls dedicated to recognising, assessing, monitoring, responding to and managing seizures are not reliably provided.5 reportsSelected
  2. Failure to provide timely clinical follow-up after medication prescribingPrescribed medication is not reliably followed up for effectiveness, safety, collection, adherence and patient response.2 reportsSelected
  3. 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.2 reportsSelected
  4. Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care recordsClinical and care records are incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent, unavailable or otherwise unreliable for safe care.2 reportsSelected
  5. Unreliable hospital discharge processesHospital discharge does not reliably bring together planning, clinical readiness, relevant organisations, safe execution and required follow-up.2 reportsSelected
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.2 reportsSelected

Reports matching this classification and recurring concern

19 Sep 2013 – 7 Sep 2026 · 2 reports

Classification: sudepRecurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
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. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Mia Louise Gauci-Lamport · 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

    Mia Louise Gauci-Lamport, who had treatment-resistant epilepsy and required full-time residential care, was found cyanotic and unresponsive at around 06.32 hours on 11 September 2023 after not being visually checked when a carer entered her room. Resuscitation was unsuccessful. The report raised concerns about inadequate night-time monitoring, incomplete medical records and insufficient clinical oversight and governance.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain comprehensive, understandable, accurate and contemporaneous medical records

    Wider context from the report

    “2. Medical Care provided to Mia Mia’s medical records at TCT were neither comprehensive nor easy to understand and did not conform to the expected standard in NHS general or hospital practice to ensure accurate and contemporaneous medical care was being reviewed and documented. Mia was a ‘looked after’ child with complex and challenging health needs and could not contribute or make decisions for herself. The independent investigator found regular PEWS (Paediatric Early Warning Scores) assessments were not undertaken to ensure Mia’s well-being despite it being within her care plan. There was no documented evidence that a multidisciplinary clinical review was regularly, if at all, undertaken to ensure Mia’s risk was regularly assessed, appropriate monitoring was in place, and care provision was meeting her needs. Mia was reviewed by a ‘privately-funded’ consultant employed by but working independently of Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital as and when requested by the medical staff at TCT. The consultant had no terms of reference and did not take responsibility for Mia’s ongoing care and was consulted only in relation to adjustments in her medication for seizure control. Due to financial constraints the consultant’s service level agreement was temporarily terminated and not available from April to October 2023. In this context, Mia was not under a specialist NHS paediatric neuro-consultant to ensure her ongoing medical needs conformed to expected practice nationally and for an independent consultant outside of TCT to have regular oversight and co-ordinate investigations and any further multi-disciplinary management she may need given this progressive life-limiting condition. ”

    Source location

    Mia Louise Gauci-Lamport · 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

    Undertake a comprehensive inspection of the service, including assessment of overnight observations, care planning, clinical monitoring and governance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In December 2023 CQC had received key information and started to plan for an inspection in February. On February 20th to 21st 2024 the CQC undertook a comprehensive inspection of TCT as part of our regulatory response to the notification of Mia’s sad death. The inspection looked at all five key questions of whether TCT is Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. (Please see attached PDF). CQC do not provide ratings for children’s homes that are registered with Ofsted, as per our policy.”

    Source location

    Response from CQC
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Audit medical records regularly against NHS standards and address ongoing health-record integration issues with system partners.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “○ Medical records: We continually audit our medical records in line with NHS standards and achieve high compliance against these. As an organisation sitting outside the NHS, health record integration is complex and an ongoing area of focus for us with our wider health and social care system partners. Medical record audits continue regularly to ensure our ongoing compliance in this area.”

    Source location

    Response from The Children's Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 14 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Local Authority, not NHS England, is responsible for overseeing the quality of the residential care service because it commissioned the bed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Mia was in a residential care bed, which is commissioned instead by the Local Authority. The commissioning body, in this case the LA, has the responsibility for oversight of the quality of the service. NHSE have provided assurance that their regional team has been working with system and other partners on responding to risks and concerns in a joint approach at this provider, which will be set out in their response. In case of interest, NHSE’s guidance on specialised services can be found here: NHS commissioning » Specialised services.”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 October 2024

    Open published response
  2. South Yorkshire (Eastern)

    AI-generated summary

    ROSEMARY BRONWYN FERGUSON · 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

    ROSEMARY BRONWYN FERGUSON, who had a long-standing history of epilepsy, was admitted after a head injury from a fall and was assessed as unfit for discharge because of risks associated with further falls. Despite recommendations that she remain in hospital, she was discharged to the care of a friend and was found deceased alone at home on 11 March 2013; the medical cause of death was recorded as sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. The principal concerns were that Social Services were not notified of the discharge, the friend’s expected role was unclear, and hospital records did not adequately document key communications and the date of discharge.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain complete and accurate records of discharge decisions and timing

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The Hospital Notes were scanty and there appear to be material omissions to record important decisions such as a detailed note of the telephone call between ████████ and the clinician, properly timed and recording clearly what was intended. Further, it was difficult to trace from the Notes, the actual day of discharge, the clinician believing it to be the 8th March and ████████ believing it was the 9th March. Some computer records were presented to the Court suggestive of a discharge on the 8th March, but this information appears to be missing from the actual hand-written Notes. I am concerned that such problems with communication can lead to misunderstandings to the detriment of all concerns. ”

    Source location

    ROSEMARY BRONWYN FERGUSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

Export data

Your Excel file will include all 2 matching reports.

Classification: sudep19 Sep 2013 – 7 Sep 2026 (Publication date)Recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
Choose the tabs to include