Recipient

Royal Hospital School

Pin Request correction

First report 4 Feb 2026•Latest report 4 Feb 2026

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Independent school. 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 Royal Hospital School linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Georgia Charlotte SCARFF · 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

    Georgia Charlotte SCARFF, aged 16, died immediately on 15 April 2024 after stepping into the path of a lorry on the A14 near Bury St Edmunds; the inquest concluded that she had been experiencing anxiety and acted impulsively in taking her own life. Concerns were raised that staff were not always proficient in using CPOMS, resulting in important safeguarding information not being recorded, and that the absence of a single standard safeguarding information management tool could create risks to life.

    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 Royal Hospital School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of a single standard safeguarding information management tool for schools and colleges

    Wider context from the report

    “However, the Court also heard evidence that there is no single standard safeguarding information management tool for schools and colleges. Teachers moving between schools and colleges must familiarise themselves with different processes and tools depending on that used by an individual school or college. I am concerned that the absence of a single standard safeguarding information management tool for schools and colleges may result in a risk to life due to teachers being unfamiliar with different management tools and as a consequence important information relating to safeguarding not being recorded in children’s safeguarding records. ”
    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 Royal Hospital School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of staff to record important safeguarding detail in CPOMS

    Wider context from the report

    “However, the Court also heard evidence that not all staff were familiar with or proficient in the use of CPOMS which, although not causative of Georgia’s death, led to important information not being recorded in Georgia’s CPOMS record. I am concerned that in another case the failure to record important safeguarding detail may result in a risk to life. ”
    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