Warwick Medical School

Other public bodies · University faculty or school

Pin Request correction

First report 6 Sep 2016•Latest report 6 Sep 2016

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

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

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Warwick Medical School linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

    AI-generated summary

    Samantha Ann Hopkins · 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

    Samantha Ann Hopkins, who was 36 weeks pregnant, collapsed at home after falling and striking her head. Paramedics initiated the PARAMEDIC 2 Trial and administered one dose of the trial drug, although pregnant women were excluded from the trial. The concern was that the exclusion warning was inside the drug packet rather than prominently displayed on its outside, and that participating ambulance services had not been given guidance on highlighting exclusions.

    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 Warwick Medical School; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to prominently highlight trial exclusions on the outside of the trial drug packet

    Wider context from the report

    “Although the SCAS staff participating in the PARAMEDIC 2 Trial had been instructed as to the classes of patients to be excluded in the trial and information was provided inside the trial drug packet about the exclusions, they overlooked that pregnant women were expressly excluded and the exclusion warning inside the packet was also overlooked. If the exclusions had been prominently listed on the outside of the packet, this oversight might have been avoided. I was also told in evidence that Warwick Medical School (which is responsible for the PARAMEDIC 2 trial) had given the participating ambulance services no guidance on how the exclusions were to be highlighted to trial participants and that this had been left to the ambulance services themselves. I am concerned that exclusions should be prominently highlighted on the outside of the trial drug packet. As there are only four categories of exclusion, this should be easily achievable. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

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