Recipient

Bondcare

Pin Request correction

First report 9 Mar 2017•Latest report 9 Mar 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Multi-service care provider. 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 Bondcare linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Frederick Bevan · 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

    Frederick Bevan died at a care centre on 4 October 2016 from a head injury following a fall at the home on 22 September 2016. The principal concern was that emergency services may not receive an accurate account of an incident when its history is not provided by the witness, potentially affecting treatment.

    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 Bondcare; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide emergency services with the correct incident history from the witness

    Wider context from the report

    “I was satisfied that Mr. Bevan’s fall was witnessed by a carer████████ However, two paramedics who attended in response to the 999 call following the fall both gained the clear understanding that the fall was not witnessed, they described that there were 4 or 5 members of staff present and the scene appears to have been somewhat chaotic. The likely explanation for the paramedics misunderstanding is that a clear hand-over of the history of the incident was not provided by the witness████████, but rather the nurses who has responded to the emergency call ‘took over’. This was accepted as a potential explanation by the home manager Judy Williams, who informed me that the policy is that the lead nurse should give the incident history to the paramedics: my concern is that if the history is not provided by the witness (regardless of whether they are a carer or a nurse) there is a risk that the correct history will not be given to emergency services which in some cases could have a detrimental effect on treatment. ”
    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