Recipient

Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 22 Jan 2024•Latest report 22 Jan 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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 Recipient name withheld linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Teesside and Hartlepool

    AI-generated summary

    Donna Georgina Smith · 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

    Donna Georgina Smith suffered chest pain at home on 17 July 2021, deteriorated into cardiac arrest, and died shortly after arriving at hospital. The report identifies concerns that her worsening condition was not recognised or escalated from Category 2 to Category 1, that the methods for detecting deterioration were not sufficiently robust, and that the ambulance response took one hour and six minutes.

    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficiently robust methods for detecting worsening conditions in Category 2 calls

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The methods of detecting worsening conditions in existing category 2 calls are not sufficiently robust (dispatch clinician and numerous call condition). ”
    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to meet Category 2 ambulance response-time targets

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The category 2 call target (18minute average response and 95ᵗʰ percentile a 40minute response) was breached and the ambulance arrived 1 hour and 6 minutes after the first call. ”
    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to detect worsening conditions in Category 2 calls

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The call handler did not detect a worsening condition and did not escalate the call from Category 2 to category 1. ”
    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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to escalate Category 2 calls to Category 1 when conditions worsen

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The call handler did not detect a worsening condition and did not escalate the call from Category 2 to category 1. ”
    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