Recurring concern

Unreliable handling of healthcare information-disclosure constraints in emergency call advice

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 29 Jul 2014•Latest report 1 Dec 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in emergency call-handling and urgent-call advice processes to recognise, explain or appropriately account for legal or procedural limits on healthcare providers disclosing sensitive patient information to concerned members of the public, including communication and understanding of those limits across NHS 111 or comparable services.

Not included

Excludes general confidentiality, consent or information-sharing failures where the deficiency is not part of emergency call advice to members of the public.
Excludes failures in clinical triage, ambulance dispatch or emergency response after the advice has been given, unless the disclosure-constraint advice itself is deficient.
Excludes ordinary patient, family or professional communication where no emergency call-handling or urgent-call advice context is identified.
Excludes generic legal, policy, training or communication deficiencies unless they directly impair recognition or explanation of healthcare information-disclosure constraints during emergency call advice.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 2
Date range: 2014–2025
Stated actions: 2

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department of Health and Social Care1

Greater Manchester Police1

North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust1

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 Dec2025
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to account for healthcare information-disclosure constraints when directing callers to make enquiries
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Issue formal guidance defining unreasonable enquiries for informants and setting out lawful alternatives when healthcare or sensitive information is relevant.
  Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceStated planned
2. Action
  Disseminate a reminder to call handlers through bespoke correspondence and FCCO digital wallboards that members of the public should not be asked to contact GP surgeries for information.
  Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceStated completed
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The request for callers to contact GP surgeries appears to be an isolated individual-learning incident, not a problem in existing tools or training.
  Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Lewis Bates · 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

Lewis Bates was reported missing after leaving his mother and stepfather’s house, having previously expressed an intention to end his life if he could not see his children. His body was found approximately two hours and 21 minutes after the missing-persons report. Concerns included the absence of guidance for call handlers about reasonable enquiries, advice to contact healthcare providers, and apparent confusion about the applicable police response process.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to account for healthcare information-disclosure constraints when directing callers to make enquiries
Wider context from the report
“2. In the context of the advice given by the call handler, I am concerned that the additional enquiries the caller was asked to undertake included contacting Mr Bates’s GP surgery and the local hospital, notwithstanding the potential legal constraints on healthcare providers disclosing information to a concerned member of the public. ”
Source location
Lewis Bates · 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
Issue formal guidance defining unreasonable enquiries for informants and setting out lawful alternatives when healthcare or sensitive information is relevant.

Verbatim wording from the response
“By the end of February 2026, GMP will issue formal guidance for call handlers clearly outlining:”

Source location
Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 3 · response
Published 3 December 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
Disseminate a reminder to call handlers through bespoke correspondence and FCCO digital wallboards that members of the public should not be asked to contact GP surgeries for information.

Verbatim wording from the response
“To prevent any future mistakes, bespoke correspondence has been forwarded to Call Handlers; and internal FCCO digital wallboards have been updated with a reminder that this does not constitute a reasonable enquiry for a member of the public reporting a concern for welfare and/or a potential missing person.”

Source location
Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 3 · response
Published 3 December 2025
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 request for callers to contact GP surgeries appears to be an isolated individual-learning incident, not a problem in existing tools or training.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Call Handler responsible has been given organisational learning feedback regarding this incident which will be filed in their personal records.”

Source location
Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 3 · response
Published 3 December 2025
Open published response
29 Jul2014
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to ensure all 111 service providers understand the limitations of the BT service for disclosing data sensitive information
This report raised 9 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Gary William Million · 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

Gary William Million telephoned 111 on 23 November 2013 but could not provide clear information about his location and then became silent. There was a prolonged delay in locating his address, including an incorrect address being given to the ambulance, and the crew attended the correct address at 01:10. The concerns included inadequate procedures and training for locating potentially seriously ill callers, communication issues with BT, weaknesses in the investigation and insufficiently robust follow-up procedures.

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 all 111 service providers understand the limitations of the BT service for disclosing data sensitive information
Wider context from the report
“2. BT’s evidence was that they have given further advice and information to blue light service providers (namely Fire, Police, Ambulance, Coastguard) but as they do not know of the identity of all 111 providers it is very possible that other 111 providers may not understand the limitations of the BT service for disclosing data sensitive information and therefore, so that this issue can be considered and lessons learnt therefrom the Department of Health ought to consider sharing this information with all other 111 service providers throughout the country to reduce the risk of similar fatalities in the future. A copy of the full Regulation 28 report addressed to North East Ambulance Service Trust is attached. ”
Source location
Gary William Million · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Failure to account for healthcare information-disclosure constraints when directing callers to make enquiries

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Failure to ensure all 111 service providers understand the limitations of the BT service for disclosing data sensitive information

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1