Recipient

Rush Green Medical Centre

Pin Request correction

First report 6 Aug 2020•Latest report 6 Aug 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Healthcare site. 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 Rush Green Medical Centre linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Theresa Robertson · 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

    Theresa Robertson was found deceased outside 90 Greengate Street on the evening of 18 September 2019, after being captured on CCTV in the area two days earlier. The medical cause of death was recorded as Amitriptyline and Zopiclone toxicity and hypothermia. Concerns included missing records of important telephone calls and a consultation, prescriptions exceeding the surgery’s seven-day limit for high-risk patients, and the absence of assurance that other patients’ prescriptions had been audited.

    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 Rush Green Medical Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to comply with prescribing-duration guidance for high-risk patients

    Wider context from the report

    “2. On 30th April 2019 Dr ████████ acted outside with the surgery guidance to allow high risk patients a prescription for medication over 7 days in length. ”
    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 Rush Green Medical Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to audit patient records for prescribing outside surgery policy

    Wider context from the report

    “4. Dr ████████ could not reassure the Court that any steps had been taken to audit the patient records to determine whether any other high risk patients were receiving prescriptions outside of the constraints of the surgery policy. ”
    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 Rush Green Medical Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain meaningful records of prescribing consultations and their rationale

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The Surgery could not produce a meaningful record of Dr ████████ consultation held with Ms Robertson on 30th April 2019 setting out the reasons for re-starting her 28 day prescription. ”
    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 Rush Green Medical Centre; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to document critically important telephone calls regarding patients

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The surgery admitted that no documentary record was taken of two critically important telephone calls between ████████ and the surgery regarding the deceased. ”
    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