Nerams Ltd

Health and care · Independent healthcare provider

Pin Request correction

First report 4 Mar 2025•Latest report 4 Mar 2025

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 Nerams Ltd linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Sunderland

    AI-generated summary

    Jack Matthew Shields · 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

    Jack Matthew Shields, a 29-year-old man with extensive heart conditions, experienced shortness of breath at home and died on 28 April 2024 after deteriorating into cardiac arrest despite resuscitation attempts. The report raises concerns about the delayed ambulance response and the failure to recognise his deteriorating condition and request the highest-priority backup.

    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 Nerams Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to recognise patient deterioration

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence was clear that Jack’s condition at the time of the first ambulance arrival at 00:36am was such that a higher priority backup should have been requested. Jack was symptomatic of cardiogenic shock with descending blood pressures, shortness of breath, nausea and vomiting, and required the highest priority backup of Cat 1 (Peri Arrest). I am concerned that the crew should have recognised the deteriorating condition when considering relevant observations such as ECG interpretation, an early recognition of such a deterioration and a correct categorisation of a backup request may have led to rapid stabilisation and transportation to definitive care. I shall be glad to be told of any learning arising from this death and timescales and results of your review. ”
    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 Nerams Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to correctly categorise and request the required priority of paramedic backup

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence was clear that Jack’s condition at the time of the first ambulance arrival at 00:36am was such that a higher priority backup should have been requested. Jack was symptomatic of cardiogenic shock with descending blood pressures, shortness of breath, nausea and vomiting, and required the highest priority backup of Cat 1 (Peri Arrest). I am concerned that the crew should have recognised the deteriorating condition when considering relevant observations such as ECG interpretation, an early recognition of such a deterioration and a correct categorisation of a backup request may have led to rapid stabilisation and transportation to definitive care. I shall be glad to be told of any learning arising from this death and timescales and results of your review. ”
    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