4 May 2022 Lauren Louise MURDOCK · Prevention of Future Deaths report Inner North London
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Miscalculation of clot risk when assessing eligibility for the combined contraceptive pill View source Failure to calculate cardiovascular risk when assessing eligibility for the combined contraceptive pill View source Failure to record significantly elevated blood pressure readings in the medical record View source Failure to bring significantly elevated blood pressure readings to the responsible clinician’s attention View source See 1 more concern
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 2
Action
Update the UK MEC using the feedback to consider formatting that maximizes usability for clinicians.
View source
Action
Explore whether a risk calculator could form part of a potential guideline-support app during early scoping.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Lauren Louise MURDOCK · 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
Lauren Murdock died from a myocardial infarction at age 27. Concerns included a significantly elevated blood pressure reading that was not recorded in her medical record or brought to the GP’s attention, and errors in assessing clot and cardiovascular risks when prescribing the combined contraceptive pill. She died ten days after the elevated blood pressure reading was taken.
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 Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Miscalculation of clot risk when assessing eligibility for the combined contraceptive pill
Wider context from the report “The general practitioner (GP) who prescribed Ms Murdock the combined contraceptive pill consulted the UK medical eligibility criteria (MEC) guidelines before she did so.
However, she then miscalculated Ms Murdock’s clot risk and she failed to calculate her cardiovascular risk.
She miscalculated the clot risk because she did not appreciate the difference between a family member with history of clot over the age of 45 years, and one under the age of 45 years . If she had calculated correctly, she would have recognised that Ms Murdock was at higher risk and she would have taken a different course of action.
She failed to calculate the cardiovascular risk because did not notice the relevant box in the MEC guidelines 11 page summary. If she had noticed the box, she would have recognised that Ms Murdock had multiple cardiovascular risk factors (obesity and smoking) and should only be prescribed Dianette following specialist consultation, if at all.
” 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 Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to calculate cardiovascular risk when assessing eligibility for the combined contraceptive pill
Wider context from the report “The general practitioner (GP) who prescribed Ms Murdock the combined contraceptive pill consulted the UK medical eligibility criteria (MEC) guidelines before she did so.
However, she then miscalculated Ms Murdock’s clot risk and she failed to calculate her cardiovascular risk .
She miscalculated the clot risk because she did not appreciate the difference between a family member with history of clot over the age of 45 years, and one under the age of 45 years. If she had calculated correctly, she would have recognised that Ms Murdock was at higher risk and she would have taken a different course of action.
She failed to calculate the cardiovascular risk because did not notice the relevant box in the MEC guidelines 11 page summary . If she had noticed the box, she would have recognised that Ms Murdock had multiple cardiovascular risk factors (obesity and smoking) and should only be prescribed Dianette following specialist consultation, if at all.
” 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 Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to record significantly elevated blood pressure readings in the medical record
Wider context from the report “At inquest, I heard that Lauren visited the practice on 13 October 2021 and saw a healthcare assistant. Her blood pressure was taken and was found to be significantly elevated at 166/90, with a heart rate of 98.
That blood pressure reading does not appear to have found its way to Ms Murdock’s medical record , and it was certainly not brought to Dr ████████ attention.
” 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 Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to bring significantly elevated blood pressure readings to the responsible clinician’s attention
Wider context from the report “At inquest, I heard that Lauren visited the practice on 13 October 2021 and saw a healthcare assistant. Her blood pressure was taken and was found to be significantly elevated at 166/90, with a heart rate of 98.
That blood pressure reading does not appear to have found its way to Ms Murdock’s medical record, and it was certainly not brought to Dr ████████ attention .
” Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Update the UK MEC using the feedback to consider formatting that maximizes usability for clinicians.
Verbatim wording from the response “We have reviewed the circumstances described in your report, and whilst we cannot comment on the clinical aspects with the limits of information provided, we note that the comments regarding use of the UK MEC. The FSRH strives to ensure that the UK MEC and all its clinical products such as guidelines, are both evidence based and accessible. In this instance, our reading of the information provided in your report is that the clinician treating Ms Murdock followed the UK MEC but did not notice information on page 11. We are commencing a planned update to the UK MEC in 2022, ahead of release in 2023, and we will use this feedback to consider how we can best format the content to maximise usability for clinicians.” Source location Response from Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Explore whether a risk calculator could form part of a potential guideline-support app during early scoping.
Verbatim wording from the response “With regard to a suggestion for a ‘risk calculator’, the FSRH is currently in the preliminary stages of considering opportunities to create an APP to better support our highly valued guidelines and standards for professional use. Whilst it is not yet confirmed if and when an APP will be developed, which will be determined subject to viability and perceived benefits, we will as part of the early scoping explore whether a ‘risk calculator’ could be a part of this.” Source location Response from Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Development of an APP, including a risk calculator, is not confirmed and depends on its viability and perceived benefits.
Verbatim wording from the response “With regard to a suggestion for a ‘risk calculator’, the FSRH is currently in the preliminary stages of considering opportunities to create an APP to better support our highly valued guidelines and standards for professional use. Whilst it is not yet confirmed if and when an APP will be developed, which will be determined subject to viability and perceived benefits, we will as part of the early scoping explore whether a ‘risk calculator’ could be a part of this.” Source location Response from Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations