PFD report

Paul Dow · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Apr 2024•Manchester North

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
2

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 escalate calls when repeated non-response may indicate loss of consciousness
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breachedPart of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
  2. Lack of clinician involvement during emergency calls
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely clinical review during ambulance call handling
  3. Failure to assign an appropriately urgent category to calls indicating a medication overdose and suicidal intent
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
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

    Route overdose and poisoning calls through Clinical Navigation for timely clinician review, escalation, further triage and welfare action when specialist triage is delayed.

    Stated by North West Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  2. Action

    Provide extended overdose and poisoning training to clinicians in Clinical Navigation, the Clinical Support Desk and Clinical Coordination Desk, including use of TOXBASE.

    Stated by North West Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    NWAS is best placed to respond on the specific local action addressing the concerns.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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 escalate calls when repeated non-response may indicate loss of consciousness

Wider context from the report

“1. Despite giving a clear indication that he had taken an overdose of a lot of medication with an indication that he did so to take his own life the calls at 18.35 and 19.38 were both coded as category 3. 2. There was no involvement from a clinician at the time of either call. 3. Mr Dow was on his own in the hotel room. When a clinician called on 3 separate occasions there was no response. During her evidence Ms Lee, the Service Delivery Manager of the Emergency Operations Centre accepted that this could indicate that Mr Dow had lost consciousness but the call made at 18.35 was not escalated ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached; Unsafe emergency call handling.

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 clinician involvement during emergency calls

Wider context from the report

“1. Despite giving a clear indication that he had taken an overdose of a lot of medication with an indication that he did so to take his own life the calls at 18.35 and 19.38 were both coded as category 3. 2. There was no involvement from a clinician at the time of either call. 3. Mr Dow was on his own in the hotel room. When a clinician called on 3 separate occasions there was no response. During her evidence Ms Lee, the Service Delivery Manager of the Emergency Operations Centre accepted that this could indicate that Mr Dow had lost consciousness but the call made at 18.35 was not escalated ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely clinical review during ambulance call handling.

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 assign an appropriately urgent category to calls indicating a medication overdose and suicidal intent

Wider context from the report

“1. Despite giving a clear indication that he had taken an overdose of a lot of medication with an indication that he did so to take his own life the calls at 18.35 and 19.38 were both coded as category 3. 2. There was no involvement from a clinician at the time of either call. 3. Mr Dow was on his own in the hotel room. When a clinician called on 3 separate occasions there was no response. During her evidence Ms Lee, the Service Delivery Manager of the Emergency Operations Centre accepted that this could indicate that Mr Dow had lost consciousness but the call made at 18.35 was not escalated ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency call handling.

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

Route overdose and poisoning calls through Clinical Navigation for timely clinician review, escalation, further triage and welfare action when specialist triage is delayed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since Mr Dow’s death, there have been various operational changes within the Trusts EOCs with regards to how emergency calls are dealt with.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Provide extended overdose and poisoning training to clinicians in Clinical Navigation, the Clinical Support Desk and Clinical Coordination Desk, including use of TOXBASE.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Training”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

NWAS is best placed to respond on the specific local action addressing the concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You have also shared your report with NWAS who are best placed to respond on the specific action they are taking locally to address your concerns. I am informed that NWAS has reviewed how it uses the call handling triage tool (NHS Pathways) in calls that involve patients who have taken overdoses. When NHS Pathways recognises a "risk of suicide" or "accidental poisoning or overdose" from the initial call triage, it will automatically prompt the call handler to continue with an advanced recommendation module to determine if the patient has taken an overdose of a number of higher risk medications. Patients who have taken such medicines will automatically be upgraded to a Category 2 response at the point of the call.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

Automatic upgrading of every unanswered patient call is not feasible because it would significantly burden ambulance capacity and response-time targets.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is common for return calls from the ambulance service to patients to go unanswered. In that scenario, it is not possible for this to result in an automatic upgrading of calls. Automatically upgrading the categorisation of all calls to patients that go unanswered would have a significant impact in dispatching the ambulance service is able to provide to patients who have already been triaged at a higher priority (for example category 1 and category 2 calls) and would place a significant burden on the Trust’s wider response times for all patient incidents, such that the achieving of target response times is likely to become unachievable.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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 Pathways, rather than the ambulance trust, ultimately determines categorisation of calls triaged through its system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The categorisation of emergency 999 calls, which are triaged through the NHS Pathways system, is standardised across England in all ambulance Trusts which use the Pathways system. Whilst ambulance Trusts can (and do) provide feedback to NHS Pathways with views/opinions on call categorisation, the decision as to categorisation is ultimately a decision for NHS Pathways.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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 did receive clinician review, including review by a Clinical Support Desk clinician and a Specialist Practitioner.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of these events, all category 3 and 4 calls presented in a ‘stack’ of calls in the Clinical Support Desk (‘CSD’) within the NWAS Emergency Operations Centre (‘EOC’), for review. The CSD is staffed by Senior clinicians who review all waiting category 3 and 4 calls in order to make a decision as to whether the call is appropriate for ambulance dispatch or whether further telephone triage is required.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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

When patients do not answer return calls, existing arrangements provide ambulance dispatch and clinician-led judgement on whether categorisation should be upgraded.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As set out above, when Mr Dow did not pick up the three calls made by the NWAS Specialist Practitioner, the decision was made by that clinician to dispatch an ambulance to him. This was, in and of itself, an escalation of the call, as it had initially been deemed appropriate for further telephone triage.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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 category 3 outcomes were appropriate based on NHS Pathways information and audits of both calls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Based on the information provided by him in response to the call handler’s questioning during both 999 calls made to NWAS, the outcome elicited by NHS Pathways for Mr Dow’s 999 calls was a category 3 response.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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