Recipient

Partnering Health Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 18 Dec 2025•Latest report 18 Dec 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 Partnering Health Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Hampshire, Portsmouth Southampton

    AI-generated summary

    Shre Kumar CHATTERJEE · 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

    Shre Chatterjee developed a sudden severe headache in August 2023 and died at University Hospital Southampton on 12 October 2023 from an acute on chronic subdural haematoma. The report identifies repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain timely face-to-face medical assessment, including missed opportunities to refer him for hospital assessment and a CT scan. It also raises concern that out-of-hours and 111 doctors could not directly book urgent appointments with some GP surgeries.

    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 Partnering Health Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Blocking of direct booking with a patient's own GP for face-to-face assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “During the Course of the Inquest it became clear that whilst OOH/111 Doctors should be able to access direct booking with a patient's own GP in cases requiring a face to face assessment ,this facility is being blocked by some GP surgeries. This means that if a patient requires an urgent assessment the OOH Doctor can only refer them to contact the GP surgery. or direct to an Urgent Care Centre which is supposed to treat minor injuries and where they may still not be examined by a Dr, and blood tests imaging are not available. In the deceased's case despite numerous attempts to access a GP appointment he did not actually see a Doctor from 23rd August 2023 until he was eventually admitted to hospital with a then fatal brain bleed on 10th October 2023. It was agreed by witnesses that if a Dr had seen the deceased face to face sooner , particularly one who knew him, then the seriousness of his condition would have been diagnosed more swiftly and he was likely to have survived. ”
    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 Partnering Health Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unavailability of blood tests and imaging in Urgent Care Centres

    Wider context from the report

    “During the Course of the Inquest it became clear that whilst OOH/111 Doctors should be able to access direct booking with a patient's own GP in cases requiring a face to face assessment ,this facility is being blocked by some GP surgeries. This means that if a patient requires an urgent assessment the OOH Doctor can only refer them to contact the GP surgery. or direct to an Urgent Care Centre which is supposed to treat minor injuries and where they may still not be examined by a Dr, and blood tests imaging are not available. In the deceased's case despite numerous attempts to access a GP appointment he did not actually see a Doctor from 23rd August 2023 until he was eventually admitted to hospital with a then fatal brain bleed on 10th October 2023. It was agreed by witnesses that if a Dr had seen the deceased face to face sooner , particularly one who knew him, then the seriousness of his condition would have been diagnosed more swiftly and he was likely to have survived. ”
    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 Partnering Health Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of Urgent Care Centres to provide doctor examination

    Wider context from the report

    “During the Course of the Inquest it became clear that whilst OOH/111 Doctors should be able to access direct booking with a patient's own GP in cases requiring a face to face assessment ,this facility is being blocked by some GP surgeries. This means that if a patient requires an urgent assessment the OOH Doctor can only refer them to contact the GP surgery. or direct to an Urgent Care Centre which is supposed to treat minor injuries and where they may still not be examined by a Dr, and blood tests imaging are not available. In the deceased's case despite numerous attempts to access a GP appointment he did not actually see a Doctor from 23rd August 2023 until he was eventually admitted to hospital with a then fatal brain bleed on 10th October 2023. It was agreed by witnesses that if a Dr had seen the deceased face to face sooner , particularly one who knew him, then the seriousness of his condition would have been diagnosed more swiftly and he was likely to have survived. ”
    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