Recipient

Competition Appeal Tribunal

Pin Request correction

First report 19 Nov 2019•Latest report 19 Nov 2019

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Justice · Tribunal. 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 Competition Appeal Tribunal linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Helen BARKER · 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

    Helen BARKER, aged 50, called emergency services on 11 November 2018 reporting suicidal feelings and threatening to take an overdose. Although reviews were recorded as having been undertaken, they did not occur, and paramedics attended 6 hours and 35 minutes after the initial call; she was pronounced dead at home on 12 November 2018. The report raised concerns about implementation of an investigation recommendation and whether an emergency category 3 call could be escalated when the ambulance response time was exceeded.

    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 Competition Appeal Tribunal; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to escalate category 3 ambulance requests to category 2 when the 120-minute call-out time is exceeded

    Wider context from the report

    “1. A serious level investigation report (reference SI 2018/27277) made 5 recommendations, the fifth appearing on page 15 which reads as follows:- Consider the feasibility of the CAT Team Leader making contact with NHS 111 when it is noted that there is an increase in the number of C3 coded calls that have not been assessed by a NHS 111 Clinician before being passed to the Trust. Has this recommendation now been implemented particularly where attempted suicides have been reported. Why can't EMAS escalate a category 3 status to a category 2 status when their own call out time of 120 minutes for an ambulance on a category 3 status has been exceeded? ”
    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 Competition Appeal Tribunal; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure CAT Team Leader contact with NHS 111 for increasing unassessed category 3 calls passed to the Trust

    Wider context from the report

    “1. A serious level investigation report (reference SI 2018/27277) made 5 recommendations, the fifth appearing on page 15 which reads as follows:- Consider the feasibility of the CAT Team Leader making contact with NHS 111 when it is noted that there is an increase in the number of C3 coded calls that have not been assessed by a NHS 111 Clinician before being passed to the Trust. Has this recommendation now been implemented particularly where attempted suicides have been reported. Why can't EMAS escalate a category 3 status to a category 2 status when their own call out time of 120 minutes for an ambulance on a category 3 status has been exceeded? ”
    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