Recipient

Ascribe Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 24 Nov 2020•Latest report 24 Nov 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Ascribe Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Northamptonshire

    AI-generated summary

    Mrs Ann Patricia Ellen Schuetz · 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

    Mrs Ann Patricia Ellen Schuetz died at Northampton General Hospital on 26 June 2018 following an allergic reaction to Ramipril. The report identifies concerns that her known allergy was not recorded across relevant electronic systems, which allowed Ramipril to be restarted and continued to be prescribed.

    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. The report was sent to Ascribe Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of primary and secondary care electronic patient systems to share allergy information

    Wider context from the report

    “In the present case, the allergy was not recorded in the appropriate places in the relevant electronic systems. A contributing factor was that that primary and secondary care have a number of different electronic systems in place to manage patient medical information including:- 1. Symphony – Emergency Department system 2. EDN – Electronic Discharge Notification system 3. ePMA – Electronic prescribing system 4. SystemOne – Electronic GP documentation system 5. CAMIS – Overview system which holds such details as ID and all attendances including outpatient One of the root causes according to the Trust’s Investigation report was “the fact that the electronic patient systems used in primary and secondary care did not have the ability to share information and therefore the updated allergy information was required to be inputted manually into each system….” The Trust is continuing to explore the feasibility of having regional central medical records but it is not known if any other Trusts are doing the same. The Investigation report also states that “The CAMIS system currently does not have anywhere to record a patient’s allergies. If a change is to be made to the CAMIS system, this would need to be changed nationally”. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Ascribe Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of allergy-recording functionality in the CAMIS system

    Wider context from the report

    “In the present case, the allergy was not recorded in the appropriate places in the relevant electronic systems. A contributing factor was that that primary and secondary care have a number of different electronic systems in place to manage patient medical information including:- 1. Symphony – Emergency Department system 2. EDN – Electronic Discharge Notification system 3. ePMA – Electronic prescribing system 4. SystemOne – Electronic GP documentation system 5. CAMIS – Overview system which holds such details as ID and all attendances including outpatient One of the root causes according to the Trust’s Investigation report was “the fact that the electronic patient systems used in primary and secondary care did not have the ability to share information and therefore the updated allergy information was required to be inputted manually into each system….” The Trust is continuing to explore the feasibility of having regional central medical records but it is not known if any other Trusts are doing the same. The Investigation report also states that “The CAMIS system currently does not have anywhere to record a patient’s allergies. If a change is to be made to the CAMIS system, this would need to be changed nationally”. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026