Recipient

Nerams Ltd

Pin Request correction

First report 4 Mar 2025•Latest report 4 Mar 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Independent healthcare provider. 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 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

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