Recipient

Care4you – City Wide Alarms

Pin Request correction

First report 23 Oct 2018•Latest report 23 Oct 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · Local authority service. 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 Care4you – City Wide Alarms linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Allan Herbert Shepard · 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

    Allan Herbert Shepard, aged 89, fell at home on 8 February 2018 while being assisted out of his wheelchair and remained trapped in a hoist awaiting help. His breathing deteriorated, and he lost consciousness from positional asphyxiation before the ambulance attended; he died later that day in hospital. The concerns related to responder staffing and policies for single-person units, and to outdated information about Mr Shepard and his family situation held by the call-handling service.

    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 Care4you – City Wide Alarms; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to pass updated information to third-party call-handling contractors

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The information that had been provided to the call handling centre by City Wide Care Alarms about Mr Shepard and his family situation had not been updated since 2015. On this occasion Mr Shepard was being assisted by his son who himself had a visual impairment. Mr Shepard junior was struggling to see the difficulty his father was in. This is important information that may allow operators to prioritise calls and/or provide more complete information to the emergency services to allow them to accurately prioritise the call. Updated information about Mr Shepard was available to City Wide Care Alarms but had not been passed on to their third party call centre contractors. It would be helpful if the information could be updated when there is a significant change and City Wide Care Alarms is invited to consider how this can be done. ”
    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 Care4you – City Wide Alarms; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of one-person responder units to attend falls when assistance is required

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) City Wide Care Alarm Service’s own guidance requires where there has been a fall a response should be provided within 30 minutes. During the time period when Mr Shepard was waiting for a response, there were two units available, However, one of the units was made up of only one person. The two person unit was engaged answering other calls in the 30 minutes following Mr Shepard’s alert. The one person responder unit was available to attend calls during this 30 minutes period but could attend a fall to provide assistance. Although the ambulance was contacted their response time was given as 4 hours. This 50% reduction in responders available to answer calls may risk further deaths when a person has suffered a fall. Therefore, City Wide Care Alarm Service is invited to consider its staffing levels and systems for providing cover. It is also invited to reconsider its policy regarding one person responder units when the injured person is already attended by someone else who may be able to assist. ”
    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 Care4you – City Wide Alarms; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to update call-handling information after significant changes

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The information that had been provided to the call handling centre by City Wide Care Alarms about Mr Shepard and his family situation had not been updated since 2015. On this occasion Mr Shepard was being assisted by his son who himself had a visual impairment. Mr Shepard junior was struggling to see the difficulty his father was in. This is important information that may allow operators to prioritise calls and/or provide more complete information to the emergency services to allow them to accurately prioritise the call. Updated information about Mr Shepard was available to City Wide Care Alarms but had not been passed on to their third party call centre contractors. It would be helpful if the information could be updated when there is a significant change and City Wide Care Alarms is invited to consider how this can be done. ”
    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 Care4you – City Wide Alarms; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient responder staffing and cover for falls

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) City Wide Care Alarm Service’s own guidance requires where there has been a fall a response should be provided within 30 minutes. During the time period when Mr Shepard was waiting for a response, there were two units available, However, one of the units was made up of only one person. The two person unit was engaged answering other calls in the 30 minutes following Mr Shepard’s alert. The one person responder unit was available to attend calls during this 30 minutes period but could attend a fall to provide assistance. Although the ambulance was contacted their response time was given as 4 hours. This 50% reduction in responders available to answer calls may risk further deaths when a person has suffered a fall. Therefore, City Wide Care Alarm Service is invited to consider its staffing levels and systems for providing cover. It is also invited to reconsider its policy regarding one person responder units when the injured person is already attended by someone else who may be able to assist. ”
    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