PFD report

Kenneth Michael Adams · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Mar 2023•Dorset

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
4

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
12

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. Failure of MPDS to account for the duration of persistent bleeding
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of significant bleeding
  2. Failure of MPDS to recognise significant scalp laceration bleeding as serious haemorrhage
  3. Failure of MPDS to account for anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for bleeding risk in patients taking antithrombotic medication
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.2

  1. Action

    Study the potential impact of uniquely coding patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication who have active bleeding or closed head injuries.

    Stated by International Academies of Emergency DispatchStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  2. Action

    Implement new language defining SERIOUS Haemorrhage and structuring its Key Question to identify persistent, uncontrolled bleeding more definitively.

    Stated by International Academies of Emergency DispatchStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2023.

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 MPDS to account for the duration of persistent bleeding

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. A patient, prescribed either antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, falling and sustaining a scalp laceration that is not “spurting or pouring blood” (the MPDS definition of “uncontrolled bleeding”), will never reach an MPDS disposition that results in a prioritisation higher than category 3, regardless of how long the bleeding has been persisting, unless the patient becomes unconscious or stops breathing. I heard evidence that the scalp is an area of high venous blood flow, such that a laceration to the scalp is capable of bleeding significantly. However, because of the nature of the blood supply in this area, the wound will not “spurt or pour” blood, so with the current iteration of MPDS a wound in this area of the body can never be considered as “serious haemorrhage”. Despite this, when assessing the seriousness of a bleed that does not meet the criteria for a “serious haemorrhage”, the MPDS algorithm does not allow for consideration of any delay in treatment or for the consideration of medications that may either exacerbate the extent of a bleed or prevent the blood from clotting to stop the bleed. For a patient such as Mr Adams, prescribed antiplatelet medication, there is a considerable risk that the bleeding will persist until the wound is closed, such that a delay in receiving treatment, where the wound continues to bleed, leaves the patient at risk of developing hypovolaemic shock. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. Where a patient on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy sustains a fall and scalp laceration, the questions forming the MPDS protocol designed to assess the seriousness of the bleed and the prioritisation of an ambulance resource do not allow for consideration of the period of the time the bleeding has persisted from an area of high vascular blood flow or the medication prescribed. Therefore, in circumstances where the bleeding has persisted for a considerable time and where there is no evidence of the bleeding stopping, it seems the MPDS disposition reached would always be 17-b-01, with a consequent category 3 priority, which does not account for the increasing seriousness of the patient’s predicament and the potential consequences of the continued blood loss. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of significant bleeding.

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 MPDS to recognise significant scalp laceration bleeding as serious haemorrhage

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. A patient, prescribed either antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, falling and sustaining a scalp laceration that is not “spurting or pouring blood” (the MPDS definition of “uncontrolled bleeding”), will never reach an MPDS disposition that results in a prioritisation higher than category 3, regardless of how long the bleeding has been persisting, unless the patient becomes unconscious or stops breathing. I heard evidence that the scalp is an area of high venous blood flow, such that a laceration to the scalp is capable of bleeding significantly. However, because of the nature of the blood supply in this area, the wound will not “spurt or pour” blood, so with the current iteration of MPDS a wound in this area of the body can never be considered as “serious haemorrhage”. Despite this, when assessing the seriousness of a bleed that does not meet the criteria for a “serious haemorrhage”, the MPDS algorithm does not allow for consideration of any delay in treatment or for the consideration of medications that may either exacerbate the extent of a bleed or prevent the blood from clotting to stop the bleed. For a patient such as Mr Adams, prescribed antiplatelet medication, there is a considerable risk that the bleeding will persist until the wound is closed, such that a delay in receiving treatment, where the wound continues to bleed, leaves the patient at risk of developing hypovolaemic shock. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. Where a patient on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy sustains a fall and scalp laceration, the questions forming the MPDS protocol designed to assess the seriousness of the bleed and the prioritisation of an ambulance resource do not allow for consideration of the period of the time the bleeding has persisted from an area of high vascular blood flow or the medication prescribed. Therefore, in circumstances where the bleeding has persisted for a considerable time and where there is no evidence of the bleeding stopping, it seems the MPDS disposition reached would always be 17-b-01, with a consequent category 3 priority, which does not account for the increasing seriousness of the patient’s predicament and the potential consequences of the continued blood loss. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 MPDS to account for anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. A patient, prescribed either antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, falling and sustaining a scalp laceration that is not “spurting or pouring blood” (the MPDS definition of “uncontrolled bleeding”), will never reach an MPDS disposition that results in a prioritisation higher than category 3, regardless of how long the bleeding has been persisting, unless the patient becomes unconscious or stops breathing. I heard evidence that the scalp is an area of high venous blood flow, such that a laceration to the scalp is capable of bleeding significantly. However, because of the nature of the blood supply in this area, the wound will not “spurt or pour” blood, so with the current iteration of MPDS a wound in this area of the body can never be considered as “serious haemorrhage”. Despite this, when assessing the seriousness of a bleed that does not meet the criteria for a “serious haemorrhage”, the MPDS algorithm does not allow for consideration of any delay in treatment or for the consideration of medications that may either exacerbate the extent of a bleed or prevent the blood from clotting to stop the bleed. For a patient such as Mr Adams, prescribed antiplatelet medication, there is a considerable risk that the bleeding will persist until the wound is closed, such that a delay in receiving treatment, where the wound continues to bleed, leaves the patient at risk of developing hypovolaemic shock. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. Where a patient on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy sustains a fall and scalp laceration, the questions forming the MPDS protocol designed to assess the seriousness of the bleed and the prioritisation of an ambulance resource do not allow for consideration of the period of the time the bleeding has persisted from an area of high vascular blood flow or the medication prescribed. Therefore, in circumstances where the bleeding has persisted for a considerable time and where there is no evidence of the bleeding stopping, it seems the MPDS disposition reached would always be 17-b-01, with a consequent category 3 priority, which does not account for the increasing seriousness of the patient’s predicament and the potential consequences of the continued blood loss. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for bleeding risk in patients taking antithrombotic medication.

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

Study the potential impact of uniquely coding patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication who have active bleeding or closed head injuries.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The IAED is currently studying the potential impact of the unique coding of patients who are taking anticoagulant/antiplatelet medication (blood thinners) who have active bleeding or closed head injuries. Due to the relatively high number of patients receiving this therapy * as compared to the number of patients who are at risk of a poor outcome related to that therapy, there is significant risk of over-triage, which may only make matters worse in areas with limited resources. Another consideration is that those patients who do not meet these criteria will inevitably suffer even longer wait times as a result. *Preliminary data suggests that nearly 22 percent of all patients with a chief complaint of hemorrhage are on blood thinners (30 percent of those aged 60-75 and 41 percent aged 75-90).”

Source location

Response from International Academics of Emergency Dispatch
Page 3 · response
Published 24 March 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

Implement new language defining SERIOUS Haemorrhage and structuring its Key Question to identify persistent, uncontrolled bleeding more definitively.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The IAED is currently implementing new language designed to better define the term SERIOUS Haemorrhage and structure the related Key Question in a way that persistent, uncontrolled bleeding is more definitively qualified as SERIOUS Haemorrhage. It is recommended that UK Ambulance Trusts educate EMDs that uncontrolled bleeding should be considered SERIOUS Haemorrhage until proven otherwise.”

Source location

Response from International Academics of Emergency Dispatch
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 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.10

  1. 1

    Conduct a detailed cross-agency review of SCARF procedures, including information sharing with agencies and family or carers, confidentiality, and consent.

    Stated by Surrey County Council and Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  2. 2

    Assess carriageway realignment and physical traffic-calming measures within the Lowgate feasibility study.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  3. 3

    Seek Portfolio Holder authorisation to proceed with the preventative measures and associated scheme funding.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  4. 4

    Progress relocation of the Lowgate crossing closer to Market Place as part of the crossing improvement project.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  5. 5

    Progress a 20mph old-town zone with additional variable-message signs at each end.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  6. 6

    Procure and complete vehicle, pedestrian and taxi-link count surveys to inform the proposed road-safety scheme.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  7. 7

    Progress a city-centre speed-limit review, prioritising Lowgate and documenting consultation decisions.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  8. 8

    Develop and consult on an increased-width, all-direction signalised crossing at Silver Street and Scale Lane.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  9. 9

    Conduct a feasibility study for widening the footway on Lowgate between Silver Street and Alfred Gelder Street.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2023.
  10. 10

    Progress consultation, design and legal orders to relocate the taxi rank from Lowgate to Alfred Gelder Street.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2023.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

  1. 1

    NHS England is considered best placed to address the lack of a unified NHS patient-information record system.

    Stated by Surrey County Council and Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    Existing crisis, professionals’ line and Emergency Duty Team arrangements are considered sufficient for urgent out-of-hours concerns without using SCARF.

    Stated by Surrey County Council and Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  3. 3

    A road closure will not be pursued because the proposed preventative measures are considered satisfactory mitigating factors.

    Stated by Hull City CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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 a detailed cross-agency review of SCARF procedures, including information sharing with agencies and family or carers, confidentiality, and consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We work collaboratively with partner agencies to review and improve our joint working processes. In relation to SCARF procedures, representatives from the Trust most recently met with Surrey County Council and Surrey Police on 5 February 2024 and a project group will be carrying out a detailed review of our cross agency SCARF process. As part of this consideration will be carrying out as to how information is shared between agencies and family/carers alongside issues of confidentiality and consent.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 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

Assess carriageway realignment and physical traffic-calming measures within the Lowgate feasibility study.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A feasibility study has commenced with a view to widening the footway which will ameliorate pedestrian safety. The feasibility study will also include consideration of a slight realignment of the carriageway to provide additional physical traffic calming measures to motorists, The decreased road widths will create an additional preventative measure with the purpose of preventing vehicles stopping on Lowgate.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 March 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

Seek Portfolio Holder authorisation to proceed with the preventative measures and associated scheme funding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, to note, none of the measures are set out within the current Highway Capital programme and authorisation to proceed will need to be sought from the Portfolio Holder for Transportation, Highways and Roads. Funding is available to support the design and”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 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

Progress relocation of the Lowgate crossing closer to Market Place as part of the crossing improvement project.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action ref | Action description P1 | Relocation of the existing taxi ranks to Alfred Gelder Street. P2 | Design of an increased width, all direction signalised crossing facility at Silver Street/Scale Lane P3 | Relocation of the existing crossing facility on Lowgate closer to Market Place P4 | Proposal to consider the viability of widening the footpaths on Lowgate between Silver Street and Alfred Gelder St P5 | Wider old town area, to be agreed, would become a 20mph zone and additional VMS signs would be installed at either end of the zone.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 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

Progress a 20mph old-town zone with additional variable-message signs at each end.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action ref | Action description P1 | Relocation of the existing taxi ranks to Alfred Gelder Street. P2 | Design of an increased width, all direction signalised crossing facility at Silver Street/Scale Lane P3 | Relocation of the existing crossing facility on Lowgate closer to Market Place P4 | Proposal to consider the viability of widening the footpaths on Lowgate between Silver Street and Alfred Gelder St P5 | Wider old town area, to be agreed, would become a 20mph zone and additional VMS signs would be installed at either end of the zone.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 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

Procure and complete vehicle, pedestrian and taxi-link count surveys to inform the proposed road-safety scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the last month the highway authority has procured and carried out investigatory works for counts of vehicle movements, pedestrian counts, and taxi link count surveys.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 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

Progress a city-centre speed-limit review, prioritising Lowgate and documenting consultation decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Highways Authority will be progressing a review of the speed limits within the city centre. Ahead of any wider review Lowgate has been identified as a priority and further consultation will be carried out and meeting minutes taken to identify the key decisions as evidence.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 4 · response
Published 24 March 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

Develop and consult on an increased-width, all-direction signalised crossing at Silver Street and Scale Lane.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action ref | Action description P1 | Relocation of the existing taxi ranks to Alfred Gelder Street. P2 | Design of an increased width, all direction signalised crossing facility at Silver Street/Scale Lane P3 | Relocation of the existing crossing facility on Lowgate closer to Market Place P4 | Proposal to consider the viability of widening the footpaths on Lowgate between Silver Street and Alfred Gelder St P5 | Wider old town area, to be agreed, would become a 20mph zone and additional VMS signs would be installed at either end of the zone.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 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

Conduct a feasibility study for widening the footway on Lowgate between Silver Street and Alfred Gelder Street.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action ref | Action description P1 | Relocation of the existing taxi ranks to Alfred Gelder Street. P2 | Design of an increased width, all direction signalised crossing facility at Silver Street/Scale Lane P3 | Relocation of the existing crossing facility on Lowgate closer to Market Place P4 | Proposal to consider the viability of widening the footpaths on Lowgate between Silver Street and Alfred Gelder St P5 | Wider old town area, to be agreed, would become a 20mph zone and additional VMS signs would be installed at either end of the zone.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 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

Progress consultation, design and legal orders to relocate the taxi rank from Lowgate to Alfred Gelder Street.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action ref | Action description P1 | Relocation of the existing taxi ranks to Alfred Gelder Street. P2 | Design of an increased width, all direction signalised crossing facility at Silver Street/Scale Lane P3 | Relocation of the existing crossing facility on Lowgate closer to Market Place P4 | Proposal to consider the viability of widening the footpaths on Lowgate between Silver Street and Alfred Gelder St P5 | Wider old town area, to be agreed, would become a 20mph zone and additional VMS signs would be installed at either end of the zone.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 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

NHS England is considered best placed to address the lack of a unified NHS patient-information record system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to your concern relating to the lack of a unified record keeping system allowing sharing of patient information between different components of the NHS, including primary and secondary care providers, you have also addressed the report to the Chief Executive of NHS England who will be best placed to respond to this concern.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 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 crisis, professionals’ line and Emergency Duty Team arrangements are considered sufficient for urgent out-of-hours concerns without using SCARF.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A SCARF is not designed to be used to access crisis support or as an out of hours referral tool. The Trust has a Crisis Line that anyone with concerns about their own mental health or someone else’s may use. This operates 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. In addition, there is a dedicated Professionals Line phone number, which also operates 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, which can be accessed by Surrey Police and South East Coast Ambulance Service where an urgent discussion is required. This allows emergency services to request critical information in an immediate timeframe to help inform decisions about people they have come into contact with.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 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

A road closure will not be pursued because the proposed preventative measures are considered satisfactory mitigating factors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The road closure will not be pursued given the preventative measures itemised in this response are deemed as satisfactory mitigating factors.”

Source location

Response from Hull City Council
Page 4 · response
Published 24 March 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
4/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026