Recipient

St Charles Hospital

Pin Request correction

First report 23 Feb 2016•Latest report 23 Feb 2016

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

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Lisa Margaret DAY · 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

    Lisa Margaret Day died from cardiac arrhythmia from hyperkalemia, associated with diabetic ketoacidosis and poorly controlled type I diabetes. An ambulance arrived approximately four and a half hours after first being called, and concerns were raised that the 111 service did not discuss alternative transport with the friend who made the call or explain the grave consequences of vomiting illness in a person with diabetes.

    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 St Charles Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to explain the potentially grave consequences of vomiting illness in a person with diabetes to the caller

    Wider context from the report

    “1. When Ms Day’s friend rang the 111 service on her behalf, the possibility of conveying her to hospital by means other than an ambulance was discussed with her and she declined. However, it was not discussed with her friend who made the call. He would have been much better placed to organise this and, if he had, it would probably have resulted in life saving hospital treatment. The potentially very grave consequences of a vomiting illness in a person with diabetes were not explained to him. ”
    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 St Charles Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to discuss alternative hospital conveyance options with the person arranging care

    Wider context from the report

    “1. When Ms Day’s friend rang the 111 service on her behalf, the possibility of conveying her to hospital by means other than an ambulance was discussed with her and she declined. However, it was not discussed with her friend who made the call. He would have been much better placed to organise this and, if he had, it would probably have resulted in life saving hospital treatment. The potentially very grave consequences of a vomiting illness in a person with diabetes were not explained to him. ”
    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