Recipient

Loughborough Urgent Care Centre

Pin Request correction

First report 16 Oct 2015•Latest report 16 Oct 2015

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Healthcare site. 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 Loughborough Urgent Care Centre linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Leicester City and South Leicestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Caroline Robey · 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

    Caroline Robey was a fit 34-year-old working mother who became unwell and attended community healthcare providers on six occasions over five days. She was initially diagnosed with a viral infection and later diarrhoea and vomiting, before being admitted to hospital with suspected sepsis; despite treatment, she died the following day from Group A streptococcal infection and evolving sepsis. The principal concerns were the absence of sepsis screening by community healthcare providers, failure to adopt available sepsis toolkit resources, and inadequate consideration of her repeated attendances.

    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 Loughborough Urgent Care Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to use a sepsis screening tool in community healthcare

    Wider context from the report

    “1. No sepsis screening tool was being used by the community health care providers, and so opportunities were lost to consider a diagnosis of sepsis and refer as an emergency for hospital admission and treatment. ”
    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 Loughborough Urgent Care Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to recognise or adopt a UK sepsis clinical toolkit

    Wider context from the report

    “2. A patient safety alert issued 2 September 2014 by NHS England clearly sets out resources available in the provision of a UK sepsis clinical tool kit, but this had not been recognised or adopted by the health care providers involved in this case. ”
    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 Loughborough Urgent Care Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to recognise repeated attendances as clinically significant

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Inadequate note was taken of the number of different attendances Mrs Robey had initiated despite previous good health, and there was no suggestion she was a frequent attender or had ever sought medical assistance inappropriately. ”
    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