Recipient

Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 22 Oct 2024•Latest report 22 Oct 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. Swansea and Neath Port Talbot

    AI-generated summary

    Peter Parker · 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

    Peter Parker sustained a laceration to his right wrist from broken glass at home and called an ambulance, but the call disconnected and assistance arrived approximately 9½ hours later, after he had died. The principal concern was that the ambulance response exceeded the expected survival time for the injury, with delays attributed to ambulances waiting to hand over patients at emergency departments.

    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

    Delays in responding to Amber 1 emergency calls

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest the reason given for the significant delay to respond to the call was ambulances waiting at Emergency Departments to hand over patients, meaning that the ambulances are not therefore responding to calls for assistance. The longest wait at the Emergency Department by an ambulance on the evening in question was 11-12 hours, which is the equivalent of a whole 12 hour shift where that ambulance was not responding to calls. The inquest heard evidence that when the MPDS system was introduced in 2015 it was envisaged that an Amber 1 priority call would be responded to in 20 minutes from the time of the call and that a person with a transected radial artery could expect to survive 30-45 minutes. Given that it was not feasible for Peter to transport himself to hospital, and Peter had not contacted his family for their assistance. I am concerned that the response time in this case was beyond the expected survivability of such an injury. The Amber 1 priority rating was by itself not incorrect but was inappropriate in the context of the time taken to respond to such priorities on the evening in question. I am further concerned that the reason for the delay was due to ambulances waiting to offload patients at hospitals, in accordance with the ambulance’s duty of care, and therefore not responding to emergency calls as is their purpose. 1. There was a significant delay in getting an ambulance to Peter which resulted in him dying from his injuries before assistance arrived. The time for survival of such injuries was 30-45 minutes, however the time taken to respond was in excess of 9 hours. Whilst there is no specific target for Amber 1 calls it was envisaged that when the system was introduced such calls would be responded to in 20 minutes. ”
    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

    Unavailability of ambulances due to prolonged waits to offload patients at hospitals

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the inquest the reason given for the significant delay to respond to the call was ambulances waiting at Emergency Departments to hand over patients, meaning that the ambulances are not therefore responding to calls for assistance. The longest wait at the Emergency Department by an ambulance on the evening in question was 11-12 hours, which is the equivalent of a whole 12 hour shift where that ambulance was not responding to calls. The inquest heard evidence that when the MPDS system was introduced in 2015 it was envisaged that an Amber 1 priority call would be responded to in 20 minutes from the time of the call and that a person with a transected radial artery could expect to survive 30-45 minutes. Given that it was not feasible for Peter to transport himself to hospital, and Peter had not contacted his family for their assistance. I am concerned that the response time in this case was beyond the expected survivability of such an injury. The Amber 1 priority rating was by itself not incorrect but was inappropriate in the context of the time taken to respond to such priorities on the evening in question. I am further concerned that the reason for the delay was due to ambulances waiting to offload patients at hospitals, in accordance with the ambulance’s duty of care, and therefore not responding to emergency calls as is their purpose. 1. There was a significant delay in getting an ambulance to Peter which resulted in him dying from his injuries before assistance arrived. The time for survival of such injuries was 30-45 minutes, however the time taken to respond was in excess of 9 hours. Whilst there is no specific target for Amber 1 calls it was envisaged that when the system was introduced such calls would be responded to in 20 minutes. ”
    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