PFD report

Colin Richard BROWN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Dec 2025•North Yorkshire and York

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
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
10

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 to routinely check for patients' choking risks during handovers
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processesPart of recurring concern: Unsafe implementation of choking-risk prevention measures
  2. Delays in making electronic patient information accessible to receiving hospital staff
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable consolidation and access to patients’ cross-service clinical risk information
  3. Failure to transport patients' care plans with them to hospital
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable care-planning processes
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.6

  1. Action

    Roll out Nervecentre with prominent alerts for recorded swallowing difficulties and recommended texture-modified diets.

    Stated by York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 December 2025.
  2. Action

    Maintain a sip-testing procedure and staff training, with Speech and Language Therapy referral after failed tests.

    Stated by York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 December 2025.
  3. Action

    Issue a clinical alert reinforcing explicit handover of known high-impact risks and documentation of verbal handover content.

    Stated by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 December 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Emergency Department action for swallowing or choking risks is limited by patients’ clinical needs and what is operationally deliverable in a busy department.

    Stated by York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 to routinely check for patients' choking risks during handovers

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest I heard evidence that confirmed that a copy of Mr Brown's care plan was not transported with him to hospital. There was mention in the notes from Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) that Mr Brown was a choking risk but there was a delay of approximately 25 minutes between Mr Brown being verbally handed across to hospital staff and the YAS Electronic Patient Form being uploaded to the Core Patient Database and accessible to staff dealing with Mr Brown. Such a delay is usual and inevitable in these circumstances, allowing time, for example, to access a device to action the upload. However, during this 25 minutes the only information that is available is what is shared orally in the handover and noted down by hospital staff. This may not include reference to a patient being a choking risk either because it is not mentioned by the ambulance crew or, because it is not deemed necessary by the hospital staff to check or to note, particularly in circumstances where this is entirely unrelated to the presenting concern. The evidence before me was that a patient being a choking risk is not routinely checked during all handovers. It was accepted in evidence that patients may not reliably draw attention to this crucial information themselves, as was the case here. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical handover processes; Unsafe implementation of choking-risk prevention measures.

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

Delays in making electronic patient information accessible to receiving hospital staff

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest I heard evidence that confirmed that a copy of Mr Brown's care plan was not transported with him to hospital. There was mention in the notes from Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) that Mr Brown was a choking risk but there was a delay of approximately 25 minutes between Mr Brown being verbally handed across to hospital staff and the YAS Electronic Patient Form being uploaded to the Core Patient Database and accessible to staff dealing with Mr Brown. Such a delay is usual and inevitable in these circumstances, allowing time, for example, to access a device to action the upload. However, during this 25 minutes the only information that is available is what is shared orally in the handover and noted down by hospital staff. This may not include reference to a patient being a choking risk either because it is not mentioned by the ambulance crew or, because it is not deemed necessary by the hospital staff to check or to note, particularly in circumstances where this is entirely unrelated to the presenting concern. The evidence before me was that a patient being a choking risk is not routinely checked during all handovers. It was accepted in evidence that patients may not reliably draw attention to this crucial information themselves, as was the case here. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable consolidation and access to patients’ cross-service clinical risk information.

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 to transport patients' care plans with them to hospital

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest I heard evidence that confirmed that a copy of Mr Brown's care plan was not transported with him to hospital. There was mention in the notes from Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) that Mr Brown was a choking risk but there was a delay of approximately 25 minutes between Mr Brown being verbally handed across to hospital staff and the YAS Electronic Patient Form being uploaded to the Core Patient Database and accessible to staff dealing with Mr Brown. Such a delay is usual and inevitable in these circumstances, allowing time, for example, to access a device to action the upload. However, during this 25 minutes the only information that is available is what is shared orally in the handover and noted down by hospital staff. This may not include reference to a patient being a choking risk either because it is not mentioned by the ambulance crew or, because it is not deemed necessary by the hospital staff to check or to note, particularly in circumstances where this is entirely unrelated to the presenting concern. The evidence before me was that a patient being a choking risk is not routinely checked during all handovers. It was accepted in evidence that patients may not reliably draw attention to this crucial information themselves, as was the case here. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable care-planning processes.

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

Roll out Nervecentre with prominent alerts for recorded swallowing difficulties and recommended texture-modified diets.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The introduction of the Trust’s new electronic patient record (Nervecentre) is being rolled out from next month with expected completion in the autumn. This will include the option to have a prominent alert to highlight if a patient has a previously identified swallowing difficulty recorded in the system and what their recommended texture-modified diet should be. This information will therefore be clearly available at future attendances.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Maintain a sip-testing procedure and staff training, with Speech and Language Therapy referral after failed tests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where new concerns are identified about a patient’s swallowing ability, the Trust has a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Sip Testing in place along with training. This provides staff with guidance around how to complete a sip test to determine whether the patient is safe to eat and drink normally. If they fail the sip test e.g. due to coughing, no swallow, delayed or multiple swallows then they are referred to the Speech & Language Therapy (SALT) team for further advice and assessment to determine the most appropriate diet options for the patient.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Issue a clinical alert reinforcing explicit handover of known high-impact risks and documentation of verbal handover content.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Clinical emphasis within handover guidance: YAS will issue a clinical alert to all staff to reinforce that known high-risk features not directly related to the presenting complaint (for example swallowing/choking risk, severe cognitive impairment, or behavioural risk) should be considered for explicit verbal handover where omission could reasonably result in harm and that clinicians document the contents of the verbal handover.”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Incorporate case learning into the monthly Patient Safety Bulletin and support local educational sessions for clinical staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Targeted learning and awareness: Learning from this case will be incorporated into the monthly YAS Patient Safety Bulletin accessible to all clinical staff. These materials will also support local educational sessions (termed internally as ‘investment days’) and will emphasise professional judgement, advocating for the continued use of structured, succinct and clinically pertinent handover conversations.”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Explore through digital governance whether electronic patient records can present swallowing or choking risks more rapidly and consistently.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Electronic record development (subject to system constraints) YAS will explore, through its established digital governance processes, whether existing EPR systems can more rapidly share swallowing or choking risk in a consistent location, recognising that any such development is dependent on”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Review and update handover protocols where appropriate to reflect contemporary practice and learning from the case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Review of handover protocols: YAS will review its handover protocols and update where appropriate to reflect contemporary practices and learning from this tragic case.”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Emergency Department action for swallowing or choking risks is limited by patients’ clinical needs and what is operationally deliverable in a busy department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We follow principles of safe handover practice and balance all information received with the immediate emergency needs of the patient. If we are in receipt at handover of information regarding a significant risk such as severe previous swallowing difficulties or choking risk this will be considered within the assessment of any immediate care needs to help manage the emergency situation. Action will be taken which is proportionate to the patient’s clinical needs in balance with what is operationally deliverable in a busy Emergency Department. Such a significant risk would be recorded in the patient’s record to ensure continuity of care throughout the patient’s journey.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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 ePR upload delay could not reasonably have influenced the choking event because the event occurred after the ePR became available to hospital staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Delay between handover and ePR upload”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Routine verbalisation of choking risk for every patient is not operationally deliverable or proportionate and could cause information overload and missed pertinent details.

Verbatim wording from the response

““It is not feasible, nor clinically proportionate, for ambulance clinicians to identify and verbally communicate all potential secondary risks for every patient during every handover, particularly where these are longstanding conditions documented elsewhere and unrelated to the reason for conveyance. Adopting an approach such as this increases risk of key clinical information being missed and prolongs the handover process, meaning crews will be unable to respond to further emergencies. This is reflected in national guidance and contemporary literature advocating for structured, succinct handover. Structured handover therefore represents a balance between completeness and safety, aligned with human-factors principles and the avoidance of information overload.”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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 crew appropriately recorded and verbally handed over swallowing difficulty; it was historical background rather than an identified active or immediate choking risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

““The information I have been provided shows the attending crew reported that Mr Brown did not disclose any requirement for a modified or soft diet to them, nor was any care plan or supporting documentation reported as existing or being provided, despite care notes within the bundle provided by HM Coroner stating Mr Brown required a modified diet. Furthermore, a collateral history was not obtainable as no carers or family members were at the scene. The ePR completed by the crew does include a past medical history entry noting previous swallowing difficulty. This reflects historical medical background obtained through them accessing the Summary Care Record for Mr Brown. This is part of routine history-taking and information gathering rather than identification of an active or clinically apparent risk at the time of ambulance assessment.”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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.4

  1. 1

    Require registered-nurse oversight before giving Emergency Department patients food.

    Stated by York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 December 2025.
  2. 2

    Consider higher-choking-risk food types and availability through Catering Services and the Food, Nutrition and Hydration Steering Group.

    Stated by York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 December 2025.
  3. 3

    Strengthen escalation and notification routes for organisational awareness and oversight of patient safety investigations.

    Stated by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 December 2025.
  4. 4

    Share learning from the case through appropriate clinical forums and, where relevant, with system partners.

    Stated by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 December 2025.

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

  1. 1

    Assessment and management of swallowing safety and dietary suitability after arrival are the receiving hospital’s clinical governance and nursing responsibilities.

    Stated by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Require registered-nurse oversight before giving Emergency Department patients food.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this incident an immediate action was implemented ensuring that patients in the Emergency Department are not given food without the oversight of a registered nurse. This is continuing and there have been no further similar incidents.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Consider higher-choking-risk food types and availability through Catering Services and the Food, Nutrition and Hydration Steering Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additional mitigations are being considered around the type of food and availability in the Emergency Department, with consideration around foods that are considered to present a higher risk of choking. Discussions are underway involving Catering Services and the Trust Food, Nutrition and Hydration Steering Group.”

Source location

Response from York and Scarborough Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Strengthen escalation and notification routes for organisational awareness and oversight of patient safety investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am also aware that the YAS at a corporate level was not formally sighted on the Patient Safety Incident Investigation conducted by York District Hospital. This has been reviewed internally, and steps are being taken to strengthen escalation and notification routes to ensure appropriate organisational awareness and oversight in future cases.”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Share learning from the case through appropriate clinical forums and, where relevant, with system partners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. System-wide learning YAS will share learning from this case through appropriate clinical forums and, where relevant, with system partners acknowledging that safe nutrition and swallowing management in Emergency Departments is a shared, multi-agency responsibility and aligned with national patient safety expectations regarding dysphagia and safe modification of food and drink.”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 6 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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

Assessment and management of swallowing safety and dietary suitability after arrival are the receiving hospital’s clinical governance and nursing responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

““National NHS England guidance is explicit in defining responsibility, stating the following:”

Source location

Response from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2025

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026