Recipient

Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 28 Nov 2013•Latest report 28 Nov 2013

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. Milton Keynes

    AI-generated summary

    Doris Phoebe Miller · 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

    The circumstances of Doris Phoebe Miller’s death are not provided in the supplied text. Concerns included the GP surgery’s lack of access to her transferred medical records, ineffective communication about an urgent blood test, and the absence of a pulse oximeter at the surgery.

    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

    Unavailability of a pulse oximeter in the GP surgery

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) During the inquest hearing it became apparent that the surgery at Broughton Gate did not have access to a pulse oximeter to measure Mrs Miller’s oxygenation. This is a relatively inexpensive item and should perhaps be available in every doctor’s surgery throughout the country. ”
    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

    Lack of an effective communication system between GP surgeries and district nurses

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) On the 23rd July 2013 the GP had requested the district nurses to attend Mrs Miller to carry out an urgent blood test. The GP was dismayed to discover a week later that the call out sample had not been taken and that the results, therefore, were not available to her. There appears to be no system for effective communication between the GP surgery and the district nurses. Again this gives rise to a concern that lives may be at risk. ”
    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 provide the GP surgery with access to transferred patient records

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mrs Miller’s notes and records were unavailable to the GP surgery at Broughton Gate despite having been transferred to the surgery, following the closure of the Willen practice in April 2013. Indeed I was informed by a GP who gave evidence before me that she was still, in November 2013, unable to access the patient records. Over 2000 patients were transferred to Broughton Gate and if the circumstance above continues there is a possibility that lives will be put at risk. ”
    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