Recipient

The Moat House Surgery

Pin Request correction

First report 1 Aug 2017•Latest report 1 Aug 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Social-care provider. 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 The Moat House Surgery linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Hayley Denise Sheehan · 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

    Hayley Denise Sheehan collapsed and died at home on 22 November 2016 after unintentionally overdosing on prescription Tramadol; the medical cause of death was Tramadol toxicity. The court found that early requests for repeat prescriptions had not been identified or acted upon, allowing her to obtain a significant amount of excess medication. The principal concern was that the prescription process relied heavily on administrators identifying early requests, while the surgery’s software did not automatically flag them.

    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 The Moat House Surgery; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to reliably identify and flag early repeat prescription requests for GP review

    Wider context from the report

    “The procedure for issuing repeat prescriptions relies heavily upon the prescription administrators identifying and flagging early requests to GPs. As far as ████████ was aware, the software used by the surgery does not automatically identify early prescription requests. Consideration should be given to introducing more safeguards to ensure that early requests for repeat prescriptions are identified and drawn to the attention of a GP. This should include giving consideration to whether the relevant software can be adapted to automatically identify early prescription requests. ”
    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