Recipient

NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board

Pin Request correction

First report 10 Nov 2025•Latest report 10 Nov 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Integrated care board. 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 NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Costas CHRYSOSTOMOU · 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

    Costas Chrysostomou died in hospital on 14 December 2024 after developing cardiac failure and acute renal failure linked to pacemaker-mediated cardiomyopathy, described as a rare but known complication. The report raised concerns about ambiguity in the use of “urgent” referrals, differing understandings of cardiology pathways between GPs and hospital consultants, and the need for clearer guidance for complex cases.

    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 NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of overarching guidance directing GPs to the appropriate cardiology pathway for complex cases

    Wider context from the report

    “2) Understanding of Pathways a. I heard evidence from cardiology consultants and a GP. It was clear that understanding of the operation of the Pathways differs considerably. One example was that some GPs consider that by custom and practice, if following a routine cardiology referral new clinical information comes to light requiring a patient’s referral to expedited or made ‘urgent’, this can be done by emailing the hospital team concerned and adding the information. However, the view of the hospital consultants is that this is not the case and that if an expedited or urgent referral becomes necessary then the referral process requires re-starting as a new and entirely separate referral. In my opinion, this confusion has the potential to create significant risk. b. I also heard evidence more generally that with more complex specialisms/cases GPs could be assisted with overarching guidance that helps direct them to the most appropriate Pathway. At present, I was told, that the system relies on the GP being confident as to which Pathway is appropriate, which is understandably not always the 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 NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Ambiguity in urgent referral terminology and third-party providers’ understanding of available cardiology pathways

    Wider context from the report

    “1) Use of the term ‘urgent’ and understanding by third-party providers of the specific Pathways available Following implantation of the pacemaker, Mr Chrysostomou’s GP was charged with arranging a follow-up outpatient cardiology appointment and arranging for an echocardiogram (Echo). Both actions were undertaken by the GP. A referral to the cardiology team at the Royal Free Hospital was made under what I was told was a ‘generic’ cardiology pathway as there was no expectation, at that time, for a more specific pathway to be used. The Echo was undertaken by a third-party (private) provider, contracted to provide services to the NHS. The Echo report was headed in large bold writing: ‘Suggest Urgent Cardiac Referral’. The bottom of the Echo report repeats that recommendation next to the heading ‘Onward Recommendations’. The evidence I heard indicated that there are numerous potential cardiac/cardiology pathways available. The concern regarding the use of the term ‘urgent’ is that I heard evidence that this is open to interpretation; for example, there is in some Pathways an ‘Urgent 6 weeks’ type of referral and also an ‘Urgent (<2 weeks)’ type of referral. It is possible that the third-party provider(s) may not be aware of the differences and/or not sufficiently aware of the NHS ICB Pathways available, which is leading to confusion. ”
    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 NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure consistent understanding of the process for expediting or replacing cardiology referrals

    Wider context from the report

    “2) Understanding of Pathways a. I heard evidence from cardiology consultants and a GP. It was clear that understanding of the operation of the Pathways differs considerably. One example was that some GPs consider that by custom and practice, if following a routine cardiology referral new clinical information comes to light requiring a patient’s referral to expedited or made ‘urgent’, this can be done by emailing the hospital team concerned and adding the information. However, the view of the hospital consultants is that this is not the case and that if an expedited or urgent referral becomes necessary then the referral process requires re-starting as a new and entirely separate referral. In my opinion, this confusion has the potential to create significant risk. b. I also heard evidence more generally that with more complex specialisms/cases GPs could be assisted with overarching guidance that helps direct them to the most appropriate Pathway. At present, I was told, that the system relies on the GP being confident as to which Pathway is appropriate, which is understandably not always the case. ”
    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