Recipient

Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 26 Nov 2020•Latest report 26 Nov 2020

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
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

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.

100%published responses found
1stated 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. Warwickshire

    AI-generated summary

    Eleanor Emily SHERMAN · 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

    Eleanor Emily SHERMAN died at Warwick Hospital on 20 August 2020 after collapsing at home; a CT scan confirmed a subarachnoid haemorrhage. The report identified two misdiagnoses, failure to read the GP referral letter, and systemic problems with access to the GP’s electronic records and the scanning of notes.

    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

    Failure to act on written instruction to treat as suspected subarachnoid haemorrhage unless excluded by CT scan

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Two misdiagnoses at Warwick Hospital notwithstanding the GP specifically stating in writing that Mrs Sherman should be treated as a SAH unless a CT scan showed to the contrary (2) Systemic errors regarding the inability of the GP team at Warwick Hospital to access the electronic record and the slowness of notes being scanned on to the system. ”
    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

    Inability of the GP team to access the electronic record

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Two misdiagnoses at Warwick Hospital notwithstanding the GP specifically stating in writing that Mrs Sherman should be treated as a SAH unless a CT scan showed to the contrary (2) Systemic errors regarding the inability of the GP team at Warwick Hospital to access the electronic record and the slowness of notes being scanned on to the system. ”
    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

    Delays in scanning clinical notes onto the electronic system

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Two misdiagnoses at Warwick Hospital notwithstanding the GP specifically stating in writing that Mrs Sherman should be treated as a SAH unless a CT scan showed to the contrary (2) Systemic errors regarding the inability of the GP team at Warwick Hospital to access the electronic record and the slowness of notes being scanned on to the system. ”
    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

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
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