Recurring concern

Unsafe management of ambulance calls involving callers who are alone

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 31 Jul 2014•Latest report 18 Feb 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in ambulance call assessment, communication, callback arrangements, support planning, monitoring or escalation that are specifically dedicated to safely managing callers who are alone, including operation of the MPDS or equivalent ambulance call pathway.

Not included

  • Excludes generic ambulance delays or dispatch failures that are not specifically linked to a caller being alone.
  • Excludes communication failures involving patients, families or clinicians outside the ambulance call-handling pathway.
  • Excludes generic training, staffing, documentation or policy deficiencies unless the source explicitly ties them to the safety of ambulance calls involving callers who are alone.
Reports
5

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
7

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
3

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.

NHS Pathways2
Department of Health and Social Care1
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust1
Senedd Cymru1
South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust1
Welsh Government1

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. Gwent

    AI-generated summary

    Jeffrey Martin Tyler · 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

    Jeffrey Martin Tyler called emergency services with chest pains and difficulty breathing, but his condition deteriorated while he was alone at home. An ambulance arrived several hours later, and his death was confirmed by paramedics on 20 February 2024. The substantive concern was that, despite his deterioration and being alone and in extremis, the emergency call remained categorised as Amber 1, with a reported waiting time of between 5 and 7 hours.

    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

    Inability of a patient who is alone to inform the ambulance service of deterioration

    Wider context from the report

    “In evidence I found that the call handlers had been following the correct algorithm as dictated by the nationally adopted Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS), and that he was appropriately categorised as requiring an Amber 1 ambulance. However, it would also have been clear to any clinician that he was deteriorating and was in the process of having a cardiac event. Mr Tyler was on his own and could not inform the ambulance service if his condition deteriorated. Despite Mr Tyler being alone and being in extremis, the MPDS Code was maintained at Amber 1. The waiting time was between 5 and 7 hours. ”

    Source location

    Jeffrey Martin Tyler · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Keith Hopwood · 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

    Keith Hopwood fainted and felt very unwell before calling an ambulance, reporting chest pain during a later call. He was found unresponsive at home and could not be resuscitated; the medical cause of death was myocardial infarction due to stenotic coronary artery atheroma. The concerns included delays and resource pressures in the ambulance service, failure to upgrade the call category, limitations in the call-handling algorithm, the use of a private ambulance not equipped to deal with a cardiac patient, and the handling of a disconnected call when he was alone.

    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 automatically escalate disconnected ambulance calls from callers who are alone

    Wider context from the report

    “4. The second call from Mr Hopwood disconnected. Because he was alone a disconnection does not automatically result in an escalation of a call. Had he been with someone who said he had become unresponsive that would have generated a different approach. ”

    Source location

    Keith Hopwood · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Karl James BOLAM · 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

    Karl James BOLAM fell and sustained a head injury at his home in the early hours of 14 August 2018. He made several calls for an ambulance, but paramedics did not attend until 3.42am, by which time he was unconscious; he died on 17 August 2018 without regaining consciousness. The principal concern was that emergency call scripts did not positively encourage lone callers to contact someone to be with them, particularly when paramedic attendance was delayed.

    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 emergency caller scripts to positively persuade lone callers to contact someone when paramedic attendance is delayed

    Wider context from the report

    “I do not believe this issue has been adequately addressed by the amendment in Release 19.2, and that the script provided by NHS Pathways for use with emergency callers should be amended positively to persuade callers to call someone to be with them, and particularly when a delay in paramedic attendance is anticipated. SECAmb have also expressed disappointment with this response. 1. The script currently used by NHS Pathways in respect of emergency callers does not positively persuade callers to call someone to be with them, particularly in circumstances where paramedic attendance is delayed due to demands on the service. ”

    Source location

    Karl James BOLAM · 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

    Amend closing instructions to advise callers to contact someone immediately if needed, then keep the telephone line free for ambulance-service callbacks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The wording was further reviewed in 2019 (details below) and in Release 19, deployed January 2020, amended to: "If you do need to contact somebody do so now then try and keep the line free as we may need to call you back".”

    Source location

    2021-0011-Response-from-NHS-Digital-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 20 January 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

    NHS Pathways cannot mandate advice for delayed ambulance attendance because it lacks delay information held by 999 providers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst using NHS Pathways, the health advisor may not be aware of delays within the 999 service. This information is held on the 999 providers host system and does not influence the NHS Pathways triage. Once an ambulance disposition is reached, the disposition script can be amended by a provider or local SOP to require health advisors to give further information depending on the circumstances. Demand management is maintained and managed within each 111 and 999 providers; therefore NHS Pathways is unable to mandate a script to persuade callers to call someone to be with them if the ambulance is delayed.”

    Source location

    2021-0011-Response-from-NHS-Digital-Redacted
    Page 4 · response
    Published 20 January 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

    Each 111 and 999 provider manages demand and delayed-attendance procedures through its own operational systems and local procedures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Operational standard operating procedures (SOP’s) manage calls where there is a delay in dispatch of an ambulance, including no contact welfare calls, therefore it is not for NHS Pathways to mandate.”

    Source location

    2021-0011-Response-from-NHS-Digital-Redacted
    Page 4 · response
    Published 20 January 2021

    Open published response
  4. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    John SCOTT · 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

    John SCOTT’s death was investigated and the inquest concluded that he died from natural causes. The concerns raised related to emergency call handling, including support for callers who are alone, ambulance estimated arrival times, whether lone callers could re-contact the service if they became unresponsive, and questions about symptoms that might indicate an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

    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 callback process to remain safe for lone callers who become unresponsive

    Wider context from the report

    “3. With regard to Pathways I understand that they have their particular questions but how can a person who is alone when they ring the ambulance service phone the ambulance back if they become unresponsive? This is a nonsense and may well confuse the patient who is ringing. ”

    Source location

    John SCOTT · 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 manage support arrangements safely for callers who are alone

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) With regard to the questions asked when an emergency call is made to South East Coast Ambulance Service my view is that the additional questions should be asked: 1. Is there anyone else with you or are you alone? If there is anyone else with you may I please speak to them. 2. If the caller is alone: we will be asking you not to ring anybody because we need to consider the possibility that we will need to ring you back however, if you want to phone for somebody to come and bring you some support and company could you please do that within the next 15 minutes from now. ”

    Source location

    John SCOTT · 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 establish whether an emergency caller is alone and whether another person can be spoken to

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) With regard to the questions asked when an emergency call is made to South East Coast Ambulance Service my view is that the additional questions should be asked: 1. Is there anyone else with you or are you alone? If there is anyone else with you may I please speak to them. 2. If the caller is alone: we will be asking you not to ring anybody because we need to consider the possibility that we will need to ring you back however, if you want to phone for somebody to come and bring you some support and company could you please do that within the next 15 minutes from now. ”

    Source location

    John SCOTT · 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 worsening care advice, including instructions for first-party callers to call 999 if they become unresponsive.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For all calls that go through NHS Pathways, care advice and closing instruction are provided at the end of each call by the call handlers. This advice instructs the patient how to look after themselves either while waiting for an ambulance to arrive or another health care professional to contact them or what to do if there is any deterioration. NHS Pathways constantly reviews all clinical content and is currently reviewing all aspects of the care advice given. One part of this review by NHS Pathways will be looking at the worsening advice which is currently given, this will include specifically reviewing the advice to call 999 if deterioration happens, such as for 1st party callers becoming unresponsive, as you suggest.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-NHS-Digital
    Page 4 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    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 the closing instruction for callers alone, consider adding advice to call someone else, and work with 999 services on its development.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS Pathways will review this instruction in line with its review process and consider adding in a statement to “call someone else” and work closely with all 999 services using NHS Pathways in this development. If changes are required these will be incorporated into release 19 (due for deployment May 2020) following NHS Pathways robust processes for authoring, assuring, testing and deployment of clinical content.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-NHS-Digital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    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 service cannot add contradictory instructions to its own script because it must follow NHS Pathways and this could confuse callers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. The question of whether a patient is alone would have to form part of the script written by NHS Pathways. The direction “once this phone call is finished, don’t ring anyone else in case we need to call you back” is part of the current Pathways script. Giving the caller the opportunity to ring someone to come to them if they are alone therefore also falls within the NHS Pathways part of the script. It would follow naturally from asking the caller if they are alone. We are obliged to adhere to the Pathways script to maintain our Pathways licence. Whilst we can add our own script after the Pathways script, it would not be sensible and would lead to confusion if we were to contradict instructions we had just given as part of the Pathways script.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-South-East-Coast-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    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

    Advice to call the ambulance service if the patient becomes unresponsive is outside the service’s control because it is prescribed by NHS Pathways.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. The advice to call back to the ambulance service if the patient becomes unresponsive is part of the NHS Pathways prescribed script and as such is outside of SECAMb’s control. In relation to this issue and those above, NHS Pathways have advised us that care instructions are currently being reviewed for inclusion hopefully into Pathways version 18 which is due for release in the autumn of this year. First party instructions (instruction direct to the patient) will now be part of that review. Given the time constraints they have on releases (including testing and clinician governance prior to release), it is possible that resulting revisions will be included in version 19 rather than version 18.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-South-East-Coast-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    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 instruction not to contact others after ambulance dispatch remains necessary because ambulance services may need to call patients back.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Within NHS Pathways, where there is an ambulance dispatch in both 999 and 111, callers are advised to not to ring anybody else since the ambulance service needs to call the patient back for example to confirm the address or any special requirements like entry information. This is especially important in calls generated from 111 as these are automatically sent through to the ambulance service and the service that has received the case may need to call back.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-NHS-Digital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    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

    NHS Pathways is responsible for amending the script to ask whether patients are alone and provide corresponding instructions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We therefore defer to NHS Pathways to make any appropriate amendment or addition to the script to enquire as to whether the patient is alone and to amend the instructions to them accordingly. We meet with NHS Pathways on a monthly basis and we have discussed this matter with them. We understand that it is under their consideration (see more in this regard at point 3 below).”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-South-East-Coast-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    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 decision to require call handlers to ask whether another person is present is an operational matter for South East Coast Ambulance Service.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Call handlers using NHS Pathways are always trained to speak directly with the patient when it is a 3rd party call, this ensures that the questions being asked are answered as accurately as possible to ensure both a safe outcome and that questions are not mis-interpreted through a 3rd party. Call handlers are not trained to ask if there is someone else with a 1st party caller, however this is assessed on a case by case basis as there are certain situations where it may not be appropriate to speak with the patient including, but not limited to, children of certain ages, callers with communication difficulties, those with hearing disabilities or so ill they cannot speak. The decision whether to ask all call handlers to ask to speak to someone else if they are with the caller would be an operational decision for South East Coast Ambulance Service as NHS Pathways cannot mandate this.”

    Source location

    2019-0051-Response-by-NHS-Digital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 2 June 2019

    Open published response
  5. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Toni Elizabeth SKILLINGTON · 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

    Toni Elizabeth Skillington took an excess of methadone and alcohol and contacted family members, who alerted the London Ambulance Service. Emergency paramedics arrived almost three hours later, after failures to follow procedures following unanswered welfare checks and other concerns about call handling and dispatch.

    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 MPDS to ask whether an overdose patient is alone

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The MPDS does not ask specifically whether the patient is alone, though it is recognised that this renders a patient particularly vulnerable. I understand that the LAS has also written to the National Academy for Emergency Medical Dispatch about this. ”

    Source location

    Toni Elizabeth SKILLINGTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026