Recipient

Spire Norwich Hospital

Pin Request correction

First report 13 Sep 2023•Latest report 13 Sep 2023

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 Spire Norwich Hospital linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Norfolk

    AI-generated summary

    Geoffrey Douglas HOAD · 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

    Geoffrey Douglas Hoad underwent a total hip replacement on 3 August 2022 and subsequently developed a paralytic ileus, respiratory compromise and deteriorating renal function. He was transferred to Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital after an ambulance response that took more than 14 hours, and he died on 7 August 2022 after developing cardiac ischaemia and a myocardial infarction. The principal concern was the continuing considerable delays in attending ambulance calls amid very high demand and pressure on the healthcare system.

    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 Spire Norwich Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of inter-hospital transfer arrangements to ensure timely transport of patients requiring specialist treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “9. Spire Norwich Hospital does not deal with multi-disciplinary and emergency treatment at its hospital and transfers patients requiring such treatment to local acute Trusts, usually the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. 10. Spire Norwich Hospital continues to rely on EEAST to transport such patients to the acute hospital, being fully aware of the demands placed on the EEAST generally and the delays which occur as a result. 11. At the inquest Spire Norwich Hospital placed great reliance on now being part of an Interfacility Transfer Group led by the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital working with the EEAST to look at a pathway in respect of inter hospital transfers. The evidence of EEAST was that this pathway was not expected to reduce delays in inter hospital transfers. 12. This concern has been raised at previous inquest. ”
    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 Spire Norwich Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continuing delays in ambulance attendance

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Spire Norwich Hospital called the ambulance service on 6 August 2022 at 18.16 hours. The call was coded as a Category 3 call, requiring a response within 2 hours. The Spire Hospital were told the response would be 6 hours. 2. The ambulance service was called again at 23.45 hours and the call was again coded as a Category 3 call. 3. The ambulance service was called again on 7 August 2022 at 07.38 hours and the call was now coded as a Category 2 call, requiring a response within 40 minutes and with an average time of 18 minutes. 4. Due to continuing demand on the ambulance service, an ambulance did not become available until 08.16 hours. The ambulance arrived on scene at 08.26 hours. 5. The time between calling the ambulance service and an ambulance arriving was in excess of 14 hours. 6. Evidence was heard as to the very high call demand overnight on the 6th and 7th August 2022 and with regard to the significant pressure the healthcare system was and remains under. 7. Evidence was also heard as to the steps being taken by EEAST in an attempt to deal with this pressure on the healthcare system. 8. Despite the steps being taken by the EEAST, considerable delays in attending to calls continue. ”
    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 Spire Norwich Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in ambulance responses to calls

    Wider context from the report

    “8. Despite the steps being taken by the EEAST, considerable delays in attending to calls continue. The Trust is of the view that only by reducing system pressures as a whole, including hospital handover delays and community services being able to deal with their patients, will pressure on the ambulance service be alleviated to enable them to respond effectively and in a timely manner to their patients. This is to a great extent outside the control of the regional EEAST. ”
    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 Spire Norwich Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continuing delays in ambulance service attendance to calls

    Wider context from the report

    “8. Despite the steps being taken by the EEAST, considerable delays in attending to calls continue. ”
    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