Recipient

Optum

Pin Request correction

First report 10 Nov 2025•Latest report 10 Nov 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. 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
200%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
3

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.

200%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Optum linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Cheshire

    AI-generated summary

    Alan MITCHELL · 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

    Alan Mitchell was admitted to hospital on 8 March 2025 with evidence of an upper gastro-intestinal bleed. On 12 March 2025, he suffered a heart attack, became unresponsive and died shortly afterwards. The report raised concern that software could remove a lifelong repeat prescription without notifying or obtaining a choice from the GP, creating a risk that patients may not receive needed medication.

    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 Optum; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to notify or give choice to GPs when software alters lifelong prescriptions

    Wider context from the report

    “Although the removal by the software of Mr. Mitchell’s repeat prescription played no causative part in his sad death, the alteration to a lifelong prescription without notification (nor any choice being given to) the GP gives rise to the risk that a patient will not be provided with the medication they need. That risk is heightened when patients are elderly and/or prescribed multiple medications and/or when, as here, they do not re-order as they possess medication in reserve. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Repeat medication does not automatically expire unless an authorised system user configures the expiry setting.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have undertaken an internal review of EMIS Web (the “System”), focusing on the issue raised as a concern in the Report. We understand you were informed, during the inquest, that the System automatically removes medication from the list of repeat prescriptions if it is not re-ordered for a period of 12 months. Further, the GP is not notified of this fact and is not prompted to authorise the change. Unfortunately, this information is not quite correct, as detailed below.”

    Source location

    Response from Optum
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 November 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing EMIS Web functionality is considered sufficient to mitigate the specific repeat-medication risk, so no further software development is required.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In this instance, based on the information provided in the Report and our subsequent review, we do not believe there are any software developments beyond the existing functionality in the System that are required to mitigate the specific risk raised in the Report.”

    Source location

    Response from Optum
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 November 2025

    Open published response
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

200%
200%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