Recipient

Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Partnership

Pin Request correction

First report 22 Oct 2015•Latest report 22 Oct 2015

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Other public body. 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 Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Partnership linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Board, now represented here by Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Partnership.

    Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Harry George Mellor · 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

    Harry George Mellor, a child with chronic health needs, collapsed unexpectedly on 28 October 2014 and died shortly after arriving at the emergency department. The inquest recorded that he had died from pyelonephritis. Concerns included the lack of a reliable system to identify when a child was de-registered from a GP, potential safeguarding risks when no new GP had been identified, and the paediatric and physiotherapy teams not being informed of the de-registration.

    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 Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a reliable system to identify children de-registered from a General Practice

    Wider context from the report

    “2. There is no reliable system in place to identify when a child has been de-registered from a General Practice ”
    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 Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a legal requirement to register or re-register children with a General Practitioner

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There is no legal requirement to register or re-register a child with a General Practitioner ”
    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 Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure a new General Practitioner is identified and notified before a child is de-registered

    Wider context from the report

    “3. There are potential safeguarding concerns if a General Practitioner can de-register a child, particularly a child with chronic health needs, before a new General Practitioner has been identified and notified of the proposed de-registration ”
    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 Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to directly inform paediatric and physiotherapy services of a child's de-registration

    Wider context from the report

    “4. The paediatric team and physiotherapy services were not directly informed that Harry was going to be de-registered or had been de-registered ”
    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