Recipient

Individual (care of Medical Protection Society)

Pin Request correction

First report 9 May 2018•Latest report 9 May 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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 Individual (care of Medical Protection Society) linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Edward Joyce · 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

    Edward Joyce suffered an accidental scalding injury on 19 November 2017 and later developed septic shock from infected burns. He became severely unwell on 22 November and died despite attempts at resuscitation. Concerns included that a temperature of 38.9°C did not trigger an urgent hospital referral and was not recorded when his mother telephoned the hospital, and that parents were not advised to bring him back to hospital.

    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 Individual (care of Medical Protection Society); that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide advice to return to hospital after reported high temperature following a burn

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence at the inquest was that a temperature reading above 38°C following a burn to a young child is highly concerning, and could be an early sign of septicaemia and toxic shock syndrome. (1) The temperature reading of 38.9°C at the GP did not trigger an urgent referral to hospital. (2) Eddie’s mother was clear that she reported this temperature reading to the nurse at Chelsea & Westminster when she telephoned soon after the GP appointment. This reading is not recorded in the telephone note and the parents were not told to bring Eddie back to hospital. (3) The evidence was that scalding injuries amongst children are very common but that toxic shock syndrome is very rare. In their evidence the hospital witnesses helpfully considered whether the information leaflet could be reviewed so as to assist other health professionals who may be less aware of the potential significance of high temperature following a burn and availability of a 24 hour telephone advice from the burns unit. ”
    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 Individual (care of Medical Protection Society); that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to trigger urgent hospital referral for high temperature following a burn

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence at the inquest was that a temperature reading above 38°C following a burn to a young child is highly concerning, and could be an early sign of septicaemia and toxic shock syndrome. (1) The temperature reading of 38.9°C at the GP did not trigger an urgent referral to hospital. (2) Eddie’s mother was clear that she reported this temperature reading to the nurse at Chelsea & Westminster when she telephoned soon after the GP appointment. This reading is not recorded in the telephone note and the parents were not told to bring Eddie back to hospital. (3) The evidence was that scalding injuries amongst children are very common but that toxic shock syndrome is very rare. In their evidence the hospital witnesses helpfully considered whether the information leaflet could be reviewed so as to assist other health professionals who may be less aware of the potential significance of high temperature following a burn and availability of a 24 hour telephone advice from the burns unit. ”
    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 Individual (care of Medical Protection Society); that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to record reported high temperature in telephone notes

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence at the inquest was that a temperature reading above 38°C following a burn to a young child is highly concerning, and could be an early sign of septicaemia and toxic shock syndrome. (1) The temperature reading of 38.9°C at the GP did not trigger an urgent referral to hospital. (2) Eddie’s mother was clear that she reported this temperature reading to the nurse at Chelsea & Westminster when she telephoned soon after the GP appointment. This reading is not recorded in the telephone note and the parents were not told to bring Eddie back to hospital. (3) The evidence was that scalding injuries amongst children are very common but that toxic shock syndrome is very rare. In their evidence the hospital witnesses helpfully considered whether the information leaflet could be reviewed so as to assist other health professionals who may be less aware of the potential significance of high temperature following a burn and availability of a 24 hour telephone advice from the burns unit. ”
    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