Recipient

Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

First report 24 Dec 2018•Latest report 24 Dec 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · NHS trust. 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
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

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.

100%published responses found
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Buckinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Joyce Phoebe Mary LONG · 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

    Joyce Phoebe Mary LONG died in hospital at 0034 hours on 11 July 2018 after striking her head at home the previous day and later collapsing. The report raised concern about differing interpretations of the reception policy at Wycombe Hospital, creating a risk that assistance to stabilise a patient's airway could be refused or delayed in similar circumstances.

    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 Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a clear, formalised understanding for obtaining nearest-hospital assistance to stabilise compromised airways

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Shortly after Mrs Long had been mobilised into an ambulance outside her home address in Hazlemere, near High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, her condition deteriorated very quickly and her Glasgow Coma Score dropped from 15/15 to 3/15. Her breathing became abnormal and irregular and she became unresponsive. Although the overall intention was to transport to John Radcliffe Hospital as a result of the traumatic head injury, the ambulance crew contacted and requested assistance from the nearest hospital, Wycombe Hospital, due to the concern over Mrs Long’s compromised airway. Admission was refused with an instruction to attend the nearest Accident & Emergency Unit so, instead, roadside assistance was provided to the crew near Stokenchurch at the M40 junction from an Enhanced Care Response Unit whilst en route to John Radcliffe Hospital. Due to the severity of the injury Mrs Long had sustained, exacerbated over the day prior to collapse by her warfarin prescription, the refusal of assistance by Wycombe Hospital (part of Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust) did not impact upon the outcome in this case. There was, however, a clear difference of opinion between South Central Ambulance Service and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust as to the interpretation of the reception policy appropriate to the Cardiac and Stroke Unit at Wycombe. It is understood that informal discussions have been had between both trusts about whether South Central Ambulance Service should or should not be seeking assistance from Wycombe Hospital (where it is the nearest facility) in cases where a compromised airway may lead to cardiac arrest. There is a continuing concern that, in the absence of a clear, formalised understanding, circumstances may arise where either help to stabilise a patient’s airway is refused, or a delay occurs as a result of confusion, and a patient dies as a consequence. ”
    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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
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