H & R Healthcare Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company

Pin Request correction

First report 15 Sep 2016•Latest report 15 Sep 2016

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

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

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from H & R Healthcare Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Philip Richard David BREATNACH · 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

    Philip Richard David Breatnach's circumstances are referred to in the Record of Inquest. The concerns relate to online applications for medication, inadequate checking of answers and failure to contact his GP, and the prescribing of Dihydrocodeine by a prescriber who had not seen him, including concerns about the quantity, suitability for migraine, and dosing instructions. The inquest concluded with a finding of MISADVENTURE (DEPENDENCE ON DRUGS).

    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 H & R Healthcare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Excessive quantities of Dihydrocodeine prescribed

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Breatnach (and anybody else) is able to apply online for medications (2) That applying online, if the application form is not thoroughly checked, allows the applicant to lie or give false or misleading answers to critical questions which is what Mr Breatnach did. (3) There was no evidence that the prescriber made any effort to contact Mr Breatnach’s GP to find out if the answers that he gave were true. (4) Prescribing Dihydrocodeine, a potentially addictive drug, used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain to a patient who the prescriber has never seen appears to fly in the face of good prescribing practice. (5) The amount of Dihydrocodeine prescribed appears to be excessive. (6) I understand from the evidence that I heard at the Inquest that Dihydrocodeine should not be prescribed for migraine which is the reason Mr Breatnach gave for asking for this medication. (7) The instructions were that the Dihydrocodeine should be taken every four to six hours as required. The evidence at the Inquest was that taking Dihydrocodeine in this way, potentially suggesting that eight tablets could or should be taken every twenty four hours until the whole of the one hundred and twenty six tablets given are used up is I heard not the way Dihydrocodeine should be prescribed. (8) Prescribing this number of tablets would therefore seem to be completely inappropriate and fails to understand that medications such as Dihydrocodeine can be used as currency. The medication came in three packets – one containing one hundred tablets and the other two containing twenty eight tablets each. The two packets containing twenty eight tablets each were never found and this raises the possibility that Mr Breatnach was able to sell them, although I have no evidence that he did. (9) This way of prescribing completely undermines the diligent and careful GP’s efforts to control this man’s medication over use. ”
    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 H & R Healthcare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unrestricted online applications for medications

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Breatnach (and anybody else) is able to apply online for medications (2) That applying online, if the application form is not thoroughly checked, allows the applicant to lie or give false or misleading answers to critical questions which is what Mr Breatnach did. (3) There was no evidence that the prescriber made any effort to contact Mr Breatnach’s GP to find out if the answers that he gave were true. (4) Prescribing Dihydrocodeine, a potentially addictive drug, used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain to a patient who the prescriber has never seen appears to fly in the face of good prescribing practice. (5) The amount of Dihydrocodeine prescribed appears to be excessive. (6) I understand from the evidence that I heard at the Inquest that Dihydrocodeine should not be prescribed for migraine which is the reason Mr Breatnach gave for asking for this medication. (7) The instructions were that the Dihydrocodeine should be taken every four to six hours as required. The evidence at the Inquest was that taking Dihydrocodeine in this way, potentially suggesting that eight tablets could or should be taken every twenty four hours until the whole of the one hundred and twenty six tablets given are used up is I heard not the way Dihydrocodeine should be prescribed. (8) Prescribing this number of tablets would therefore seem to be completely inappropriate and fails to understand that medications such as Dihydrocodeine can be used as currency. The medication came in three packets – one containing one hundred tablets and the other two containing twenty eight tablets each. The two packets containing twenty eight tablets each were never found and this raises the possibility that Mr Breatnach was able to sell them, although I have no evidence that he did. (9) This way of prescribing completely undermines the diligent and careful GP’s efforts to control this man’s medication over use. ”
    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 H & R Healthcare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Prescribing Dihydrocodeine for migraine

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Breatnach (and anybody else) is able to apply online for medications (2) That applying online, if the application form is not thoroughly checked, allows the applicant to lie or give false or misleading answers to critical questions which is what Mr Breatnach did. (3) There was no evidence that the prescriber made any effort to contact Mr Breatnach’s GP to find out if the answers that he gave were true. (4) Prescribing Dihydrocodeine, a potentially addictive drug, used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain to a patient who the prescriber has never seen appears to fly in the face of good prescribing practice. (5) The amount of Dihydrocodeine prescribed appears to be excessive. (6) I understand from the evidence that I heard at the Inquest that Dihydrocodeine should not be prescribed for migraine which is the reason Mr Breatnach gave for asking for this medication. (7) The instructions were that the Dihydrocodeine should be taken every four to six hours as required. The evidence at the Inquest was that taking Dihydrocodeine in this way, potentially suggesting that eight tablets could or should be taken every twenty four hours until the whole of the one hundred and twenty six tablets given are used up is I heard not the way Dihydrocodeine should be prescribed. (8) Prescribing this number of tablets would therefore seem to be completely inappropriate and fails to understand that medications such as Dihydrocodeine can be used as currency. The medication came in three packets – one containing one hundred tablets and the other two containing twenty eight tablets each. The two packets containing twenty eight tablets each were never found and this raises the possibility that Mr Breatnach was able to sell them, although I have no evidence that he did. (9) This way of prescribing completely undermines the diligent and careful GP’s efforts to control this man’s medication over use. ”
    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 H & R Healthcare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to prescribe safe Dihydrocodeine dosing instructions

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Breatnach (and anybody else) is able to apply online for medications (2) That applying online, if the application form is not thoroughly checked, allows the applicant to lie or give false or misleading answers to critical questions which is what Mr Breatnach did. (3) There was no evidence that the prescriber made any effort to contact Mr Breatnach’s GP to find out if the answers that he gave were true. (4) Prescribing Dihydrocodeine, a potentially addictive drug, used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain to a patient who the prescriber has never seen appears to fly in the face of good prescribing practice. (5) The amount of Dihydrocodeine prescribed appears to be excessive. (6) I understand from the evidence that I heard at the Inquest that Dihydrocodeine should not be prescribed for migraine which is the reason Mr Breatnach gave for asking for this medication. (7) The instructions were that the Dihydrocodeine should be taken every four to six hours as required. The evidence at the Inquest was that taking Dihydrocodeine in this way, potentially suggesting that eight tablets could or should be taken every twenty four hours until the whole of the one hundred and twenty six tablets given are used up is I heard not the way Dihydrocodeine should be prescribed. (8) Prescribing this number of tablets would therefore seem to be completely inappropriate and fails to understand that medications such as Dihydrocodeine can be used as currency. The medication came in three packets – one containing one hundred tablets and the other two containing twenty eight tablets each. The two packets containing twenty eight tablets each were never found and this raises the possibility that Mr Breatnach was able to sell them, although I have no evidence that he did. (9) This way of prescribing completely undermines the diligent and careful GP’s efforts to control this man’s medication over use. ”
    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 H & R Healthcare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to contact the patient’s GP to verify medication application answers

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Breatnach (and anybody else) is able to apply online for medications (2) That applying online, if the application form is not thoroughly checked, allows the applicant to lie or give false or misleading answers to critical questions which is what Mr Breatnach did. (3) There was no evidence that the prescriber made any effort to contact Mr Breatnach’s GP to find out if the answers that he gave were true. (4) Prescribing Dihydrocodeine, a potentially addictive drug, used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain to a patient who the prescriber has never seen appears to fly in the face of good prescribing practice. (5) The amount of Dihydrocodeine prescribed appears to be excessive. (6) I understand from the evidence that I heard at the Inquest that Dihydrocodeine should not be prescribed for migraine which is the reason Mr Breatnach gave for asking for this medication. (7) The instructions were that the Dihydrocodeine should be taken every four to six hours as required. The evidence at the Inquest was that taking Dihydrocodeine in this way, potentially suggesting that eight tablets could or should be taken every twenty four hours until the whole of the one hundred and twenty six tablets given are used up is I heard not the way Dihydrocodeine should be prescribed. (8) Prescribing this number of tablets would therefore seem to be completely inappropriate and fails to understand that medications such as Dihydrocodeine can be used as currency. The medication came in three packets – one containing one hundred tablets and the other two containing twenty eight tablets each. The two packets containing twenty eight tablets each were never found and this raises the possibility that Mr Breatnach was able to sell them, although I have no evidence that he did. (9) This way of prescribing completely undermines the diligent and careful GP’s efforts to control this man’s medication over use. ”
    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 H & R Healthcare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to account for the potential diversion of Dihydrocodeine

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Breatnach (and anybody else) is able to apply online for medications (2) That applying online, if the application form is not thoroughly checked, allows the applicant to lie or give false or misleading answers to critical questions which is what Mr Breatnach did. (3) There was no evidence that the prescriber made any effort to contact Mr Breatnach’s GP to find out if the answers that he gave were true. (4) Prescribing Dihydrocodeine, a potentially addictive drug, used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain to a patient who the prescriber has never seen appears to fly in the face of good prescribing practice. (5) The amount of Dihydrocodeine prescribed appears to be excessive. (6) I understand from the evidence that I heard at the Inquest that Dihydrocodeine should not be prescribed for migraine which is the reason Mr Breatnach gave for asking for this medication. (7) The instructions were that the Dihydrocodeine should be taken every four to six hours as required. The evidence at the Inquest was that taking Dihydrocodeine in this way, potentially suggesting that eight tablets could or should be taken every twenty four hours until the whole of the one hundred and twenty six tablets given are used up is I heard not the way Dihydrocodeine should be prescribed. (8) Prescribing this number of tablets would therefore seem to be completely inappropriate and fails to understand that medications such as Dihydrocodeine can be used as currency. The medication came in three packets – one containing one hundred tablets and the other two containing twenty eight tablets each. The two packets containing twenty eight tablets each were never found and this raises the possibility that Mr Breatnach was able to sell them, although I have no evidence that he did. (9) This way of prescribing completely undermines the diligent and careful GP’s efforts to control this man’s medication over use. ”
    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 H & R Healthcare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to thoroughly check online medication application forms

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Breatnach (and anybody else) is able to apply online for medications (2) That applying online, if the application form is not thoroughly checked, allows the applicant to lie or give false or misleading answers to critical questions which is what Mr Breatnach did. (3) There was no evidence that the prescriber made any effort to contact Mr Breatnach’s GP to find out if the answers that he gave were true. (4) Prescribing Dihydrocodeine, a potentially addictive drug, used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain to a patient who the prescriber has never seen appears to fly in the face of good prescribing practice. (5) The amount of Dihydrocodeine prescribed appears to be excessive. (6) I understand from the evidence that I heard at the Inquest that Dihydrocodeine should not be prescribed for migraine which is the reason Mr Breatnach gave for asking for this medication. (7) The instructions were that the Dihydrocodeine should be taken every four to six hours as required. The evidence at the Inquest was that taking Dihydrocodeine in this way, potentially suggesting that eight tablets could or should be taken every twenty four hours until the whole of the one hundred and twenty six tablets given are used up is I heard not the way Dihydrocodeine should be prescribed. (8) Prescribing this number of tablets would therefore seem to be completely inappropriate and fails to understand that medications such as Dihydrocodeine can be used as currency. The medication came in three packets – one containing one hundred tablets and the other two containing twenty eight tablets each. The two packets containing twenty eight tablets each were never found and this raises the possibility that Mr Breatnach was able to sell them, although I have no evidence that he did. (9) This way of prescribing completely undermines the diligent and careful GP’s efforts to control this man’s medication over use. ”
    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 H & R Healthcare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to assess a patient in person before prescribing Dihydrocodeine

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Breatnach (and anybody else) is able to apply online for medications (2) That applying online, if the application form is not thoroughly checked, allows the applicant to lie or give false or misleading answers to critical questions which is what Mr Breatnach did. (3) There was no evidence that the prescriber made any effort to contact Mr Breatnach’s GP to find out if the answers that he gave were true. (4) Prescribing Dihydrocodeine, a potentially addictive drug, used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain to a patient who the prescriber has never seen appears to fly in the face of good prescribing practice. (5) The amount of Dihydrocodeine prescribed appears to be excessive. (6) I understand from the evidence that I heard at the Inquest that Dihydrocodeine should not be prescribed for migraine which is the reason Mr Breatnach gave for asking for this medication. (7) The instructions were that the Dihydrocodeine should be taken every four to six hours as required. The evidence at the Inquest was that taking Dihydrocodeine in this way, potentially suggesting that eight tablets could or should be taken every twenty four hours until the whole of the one hundred and twenty six tablets given are used up is I heard not the way Dihydrocodeine should be prescribed. (8) Prescribing this number of tablets would therefore seem to be completely inappropriate and fails to understand that medications such as Dihydrocodeine can be used as currency. The medication came in three packets – one containing one hundred tablets and the other two containing twenty eight tablets each. The two packets containing twenty eight tablets each were never found and this raises the possibility that Mr Breatnach was able to sell them, although I have no evidence that he did. (9) This way of prescribing completely undermines the diligent and careful GP’s efforts to control this man’s medication over use. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

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