Recipient

Norwich Emergency Operations Centre

Pin Request correction

First report 17 Jan 2019•Latest report 17 Jan 2019

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 Norwich Emergency Operations Centre linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Mark Harris · 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

    Mark Harris was found deceased with a rope around his neck at the home of his ex-partner on 11 January 2016, after expressing suicidal thoughts following his release from police custody. The report identified communication and information-sharing problems between the ambulance service, police control room and attending officers, including the deceased’s name being mis-spelt and uncertainty about the purpose of the police attendance.

    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 Norwich Emergency Operations Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide the police with the correct identity of the person involved in a welfare call

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The 999 call was directed to the ambulance service for a welfare check. The suicide protocol was initiated by the call handler to seek information. When the police were called the mis-spelt name of the deceased as HAIS was provided to them together with detail of the nature of the welfare call as “messaging all night threatening to kill himself”. The police attended the address. Had the correct spelling of the name been provided to the police they would have known Mark Harris and his history of suicide attempts. This was a significant problem for an intelligence led service. ”
    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 Norwich Emergency Operations Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to share the informant's contact details and ambulance service CAD information with the police

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The police evidence was that in the event of a welfare call, which they could conduct in any event under section 17 powers in the absence of the ambulance service, there was additional information that should be shared including the name and contact telephone number of the informant, and the information recorded in the ambulance service CAD. ”
    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 Norwich Emergency Operations Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of an agreed ambulance–police communication protocol incorporating information helpful to the police

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) There is no agreed protocol between the ambulance and police services facilitating communication to formulate an ambulance service protocol which incorporates information helpful to the police. ”
    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 Norwich Emergency Operations Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the call-handling protocol to state when police attendance is requested to safeguard ambulance personnel

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) It was unclear to the police that they were being asked to attend to safeguard ambulance personnel and not to undertake a welfare check. The protocol used by the call handler did not make provision for that to be stated. ”
    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