Recipient

Brother and next of kin

Pin Request correction

First report 10 Apr 2014•Latest report 10 Apr 2014

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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 Brother and next of kin linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Manchester City

    AI-generated summary

    Terence Norbert Dooley · 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

    Terence Norbert Dooley took a fatal overdose of medication and contacted the ambulance service, reporting his location and symptoms. Attendance was delayed by 2 hours and 38 minutes, and he was later found deceased by the canal. Concerns included the emergency call being coded green, the delay in response, poor communication, and misleading computer-generated codes.

    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 Brother and next of kin; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in responding to emergency calls

    Wider context from the report

    “2. This was an emergency and a delay of 2 hours and 38 minutes is totally unacceptable regardless of pressures on the service due to Halloween. ”
    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 Brother and next of kin; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to communicate emergency response dispatch expectations

    Wider context from the report

    “3. There appears to have been a lack of communication. The call handler believed that a response vehicle would be dispatched in 20 minutes. ”
    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 Brother and next of kin; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to assign an appropriately urgent code to a potentially fatal tablet ingestion

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Despite the fact that each different tablet could be fatal on its own, let alone together, this call was given a code green. ”
    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 Brother and next of kin; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Computer-generated emergency codes failing to accurately convey urgency

    Wider context from the report

    “4. The computer generated codes are misleading. One dash is one too many when it should have, and could have been avoided. ”
    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