PFD report

Sandra Dianne Finch · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 May 2023•Staffordshire South

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Lack of a prioritisation system for category 3 ambulance call assessments
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable category 3 ambulance assessment and response arrangements
  2. Lack of time limits for category 3 ambulance call assessments
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable category 3 ambulance assessment and response arrangements
  3. Failure of ambulance categorisation pathways to allow movement away from rigid categories
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. Action

    Prioritise category 3 and 4 clinical-assessment callbacks in incident-category time order, targeting contact within 60 minutes.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 June 2023.
  2. Action

    Operate a clinical validation process that triages category 3 and 4 incidents, routes patients to appropriate outcomes, and increases ambulance response categories where clinically indicated.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 June 2023.
  3. Action

    Highlight patients waiting over 120 minutes, and every subsequent 120 minutes, for further clinical-navigator risk assessment.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 June 2023.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Existing clinical validation, prioritisation, risk assessment and escalation arrangements are considered sufficient to manage category 3 and 4 delays safely.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of a prioritisation system for category 3 ambulance call assessments

Wider context from the report

“2. That the use of an assessment team, to asses a category 3 ambulance call, with no time limit for assessments to take place, and no prioritisation system, will lead to further deaths resulting from delays. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable category 3 ambulance assessment and response arrangements.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of time limits for category 3 ambulance call assessments

Wider context from the report

“2. That the use of an assessment team, to asses a category 3 ambulance call, with no time limit for assessments to take place, and no prioritisation system, will lead to further deaths resulting from delays. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable category 3 ambulance assessment and response arrangements.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of ambulance categorisation pathways to allow movement away from rigid categories

Wider context from the report

“1. That the pathways used by the service to categorise the level of ambulance and ridged and have no capacity for movement away from the path. This led to a type 1 diabetic patient, who was feeling sleepy and with deranged glucose levels, not being classed as a potentially serious situation requiring rapid intervention. Clinical opinion in agreement that this was, but the rigidly of the pathway meant it was categorised incorrectly. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Prioritise category 3 and 4 clinical-assessment callbacks in incident-category time order, targeting contact within 60 minutes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust now aims to contact category 3 and 4 patients for a clinical assessment within 60 minutes. Patients are prioritised for call back in time order, within their incident category. Patients waiting more than 120 minutes, and each 120 minutes thereafter, are highlighted for further a risk assessment by the clinical navigator.”

Source location

Response from West Midlands Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 12 June 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Operate a clinical validation process that triages category 3 and 4 incidents, routes patients to appropriate outcomes, and increases ambulance response categories where clinically indicated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In July 2021, during a period of significant demand on the ambulance service as the NHS adjusted to the challenges of the Covid pandemic and changing lockdown requirements, the Trust implemented a pilot to undertake the clinical triage of category 3 and 4 incidents to better manage patients to appropriate outcomes and reduce the pressure on emergency departments. From this period the Trust continued to experience a considerable number of lost operational hours through delays in hospital handover, combined with increased in staffing abstractions due to sickness and covid isolation requirements. This, combined with the positive outcomes for patients, led to the clinical validation team becoming a substantiated process within the Trust.”

Source location

Response from West Midlands Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 12 June 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Highlight patients waiting over 120 minutes, and every subsequent 120 minutes, for further clinical-navigator risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust now aims to contact category 3 and 4 patients for a clinical assessment within 60 minutes. Patients are prioritised for call back in time order, within their incident category. Patients waiting more than 120 minutes, and each 120 minutes thereafter, are highlighted for further a risk assessment by the clinical navigator.”

Source location

Response from West Midlands Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 12 June 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Have senior clinical navigators risk-assess patients awaiting clinical assessment, arrange ambulance dispatch for unsuitable patients, and upgrade incidents when indicated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All patients presenting for clinical assessment are risk assessed by a senior clinician called the clinical navigator. The clinical navigator, based upon the initial triage, determines if the patient is safe and appropriate to wait for clinical assessment. Those patients deemed unsuitable for clinical assessment are presented to dispatch for the next available ambulance resource, dependent on their category. The clinical navigator does have autonomy to upgrade incidents, should this be indicated; no patient is to be left waiting unnecessarily.”

Source location

Response from West Midlands Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 12 June 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Existing clinical validation, prioritisation, risk assessment and escalation arrangements are considered sufficient to manage category 3 and 4 delays safely.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In July 2021, during a period of significant demand on the ambulance service as the NHS adjusted to the challenges of the Covid pandemic and changing lockdown requirements, the Trust implemented a pilot to undertake the clinical triage of category 3 and 4 incidents to better manage patients to appropriate outcomes and reduce the pressure on emergency departments. From this period the Trust continued to experience a considerable number of lost operational hours through delays in hospital handover, combined with increased in staffing abstractions due to sickness and covid isolation requirements. This, combined with the positive outcomes for patients, led to the clinical validation team becoming a substantiated process within the Trust.”

Source location

Response from West Midlands Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 12 June 2023

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Conduct regular clinical audits of clinicians and clinical navigators, with senior review of serious incidents and concerns about clinical-triage appropriateness.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 June 2023.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The call would not have generated a higher response category without further clinical intervention.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Conduct regular clinical audits of clinicians and clinical navigators, with senior review of serious incidents and concerns about clinical-triage appropriateness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All clinicians, and the clinical navigators, receive regular clinical audit to ensure competency, and safe and appropriate outcomes for patients. Audit is a requirement of NHS Pathways licensing agreement and provides learning opportunities for both the individual clinician and the Trust. All serious incidents and concerns raised regarding the appropriateness of a clinical triage receive audit and senior review.”

Source location

Response from West Midlands Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 12 June 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The call would not have generated a higher response category without further clinical intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When reviewing the 999 call made by Mrs. Finch, a higher response category would not have been generated without further clinical intervention. Mrs Finch was conversant and advising her blood sugars were probably high due to being a type 1 diabetic. When asked, Mrs. Finch was unable to test her blood glucose level due to being unable to locate her testing kit, she was struggling generally with day-to-day activities and felt sleepy. The call assessor advised Mrs. Finch that she may receive a call back from a clinician for further assessment.”

Source location

Response from West Midlands Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 12 June 2023

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026