PFD report

Theo Gordon Tuikubulau · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Jan 2026•Devon, Plymouth and Torbay

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised2

  1. Inconsistent assessment, triage and ambulance categorisation of urgent breathing complaints across MPDS and NHS Pathways
    Part of recurring concern: Telephone triage that is unreliable and can delay necessary carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable NHS 111 clinical triage algorithms and systemsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triagePart of recurring concern: Unreliable remote assessment and triage of ill infants
  2. Failure of NHS Pathways to interrogate declared cyanosis as a trigger for Category 1 ineffective-breathing disposition
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable NHS 111 clinical triage algorithms and systemsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable remote assessment and triage of ill infants
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

    Increase clinical support and oversight in 999 Emergency Operations Centres to enable reassessment and potential re-categorisation of high-risk patients.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 January 2026.
  2. Action

    Review the MPDS and NHS Pathways triage systems with clinical groups, ambulance services and providers to assess respiratory-distress consistency and clinical appropriateness.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 January 2026.
  3. Action

    Continue monitoring triage categorisation and strengthening clinical oversight.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 January 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Both MPDS and NHS Pathways would produce a category 1 response for another child presenting as Theo did, if triaged appropriately.

    Stated by NHS EnglandDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Inconsistent assessment, triage and ambulance categorisation of urgent breathing complaints across MPDS and NHS Pathways

Wider context from the report

“The difference in assessment and triage of calls under these two systems appears to create a two-tiered system of assessment and ambulance categorisation in the Devon area (and potentially nationally). It appears that similar breathing complaints requiring urgent medical attention will result in a different ambulance disposition depending on whether the call is triaged via MPDS (used by the 999 provider in Devon) or NHS Pathways (used by the 111 provider in Devon). As a result of the evidence heard at the inquest I considered it likely that my duty to prevent future deaths was engaged in this case. However, I was conscious that I did not hear evidence directly from those responsible for the NHS Pathways or MPDS systems during the inquest. I therefore requested further information from both of the organisations responsible for NHS Pathways and MPDS about why there appears to be a two tier system in Devon (and potentially nationally) which would result in a different ambulance categorisation (category 1 under MPDS and category 2 under NHS Pathways) when a caller describes breathing difficulties such as "fighting for breath", "turning blue", or "gasping". Further I asked that if this two tier system does exist, either in Devon, nationally or both, for further information about what is being done to address those differences in call assessment, triage and ambulance categorisation. On 26 November 2025 I was provided with an independent case review from the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch ("IAED"). They had reviewed the calls triaged via the MPDS system and confirmed that these calls had been properly assigned a category 1 response time. They were unable to comment on the calls triaged by NHS Pathways as it has no association with that algorithm. On 4 September 2025 I was provided with further information from NHS England about the Triage systems in place. They confirmed that: "MPDS is a long-established triage system launched in 1979, published by the Priority Dispatch Corporation (PDC), and its ongoing development is supported by the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED)… NHS England does not manage or oversee the MPDS and we are therefore unable to provide comment on their system. NHS Pathways is a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) used for remote clinical assessment in urgent and emergency care. NHS Pathways was launched in 2005 and is developed and maintained by the Transformation Directorate at NHS England, and is overseen by the National Clinical Assurance Group (NCAG), an independent intercollegiate body hosted by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. It underpins all NHS 111 services and more than half of England’s 999 telephony services… …Both triage systems are designed to assess the presenting symptoms/condition and acuity (severity and urgency of the symptoms/condition) of the patient based on the identification of priority symptoms (e.g. unconsciousness, difficulty breathing or chest pain). If, during the call, the patient’s condition changed (either improves or worsens), then there is an exception that the call handler will re-triage with the new information which may change the response being arranged." The response from NHS England further confirmed that: "Following a review of this case by NHS England’s Urgent & Emergency Care (UEC) Teams, it is clear that there is variation between the two triage systems with regards to respiratory distress in children under 5, specifically in relation to the management of declared cyanosis (where the patient’s skin or lips have turned blue or grey). If a caller volunteers ‘cyanosis’, they will be recognised as having ineffective breathing through the MPDS triage. However, the presence of cyanosis is not interrogated within NHS Pathways and as such this symptom/sign is not a specific trigger for generating a Category 1 disposition for ineffective breathing within NHS Pathways, instead resulting in the generation of a Respiratory Distress disposition that is mapped to a Category 2 response." I was advised within the letter that NHS England will work with the clinical coding groups and NHS Pathways to review this to ensure that the triage and categorisation of ineffective breathing and respiratory distress is consistent across the two triage systems and remains clinically appropriate, for which I am grateful. However, as this has not yet occurred and the two tiered triage system continues to exist, so does my duty to make a report to prevent future deaths in this matter. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Telephone triage that is unreliable and can delay necessary care; Unreliable NHS 111 clinical triage algorithms and systems; Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage; Unreliable remote assessment and triage of ill infants.

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 NHS Pathways to interrogate declared cyanosis as a trigger for Category 1 ineffective-breathing disposition

Wider context from the report

“The difference in assessment and triage of calls under these two systems appears to create a two-tiered system of assessment and ambulance categorisation in the Devon area (and potentially nationally). It appears that similar breathing complaints requiring urgent medical attention will result in a different ambulance disposition depending on whether the call is triaged via MPDS (used by the 999 provider in Devon) or NHS Pathways (used by the 111 provider in Devon). As a result of the evidence heard at the inquest I considered it likely that my duty to prevent future deaths was engaged in this case. However, I was conscious that I did not hear evidence directly from those responsible for the NHS Pathways or MPDS systems during the inquest. I therefore requested further information from both of the organisations responsible for NHS Pathways and MPDS about why there appears to be a two tier system in Devon (and potentially nationally) which would result in a different ambulance categorisation (category 1 under MPDS and category 2 under NHS Pathways) when a caller describes breathing difficulties such as "fighting for breath", "turning blue", or "gasping". Further I asked that if this two tier system does exist, either in Devon, nationally or both, for further information about what is being done to address those differences in call assessment, triage and ambulance categorisation. On 26 November 2025 I was provided with an independent case review from the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch ("IAED"). They had reviewed the calls triaged via the MPDS system and confirmed that these calls had been properly assigned a category 1 response time. They were unable to comment on the calls triaged by NHS Pathways as it has no association with that algorithm. On 4 September 2025 I was provided with further information from NHS England about the Triage systems in place. They confirmed that: "MPDS is a long-established triage system launched in 1979, published by the Priority Dispatch Corporation (PDC), and its ongoing development is supported by the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED)… NHS England does not manage or oversee the MPDS and we are therefore unable to provide comment on their system. NHS Pathways is a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) used for remote clinical assessment in urgent and emergency care. NHS Pathways was launched in 2005 and is developed and maintained by the Transformation Directorate at NHS England, and is overseen by the National Clinical Assurance Group (NCAG), an independent intercollegiate body hosted by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. It underpins all NHS 111 services and more than half of England’s 999 telephony services… …Both triage systems are designed to assess the presenting symptoms/condition and acuity (severity and urgency of the symptoms/condition) of the patient based on the identification of priority symptoms (e.g. unconsciousness, difficulty breathing or chest pain). If, during the call, the patient’s condition changed (either improves or worsens), then there is an exception that the call handler will re-triage with the new information which may change the response being arranged." The response from NHS England further confirmed that: "Following a review of this case by NHS England’s Urgent & Emergency Care (UEC) Teams, it is clear that there is variation between the two triage systems with regards to respiratory distress in children under 5, specifically in relation to the management of declared cyanosis (where the patient’s skin or lips have turned blue or grey). If a caller volunteers ‘cyanosis’, they will be recognised as having ineffective breathing through the MPDS triage. However, the presence of cyanosis is not interrogated within NHS Pathways and as such this symptom/sign is not a specific trigger for generating a Category 1 disposition for ineffective breathing within NHS Pathways, instead resulting in the generation of a Respiratory Distress disposition that is mapped to a Category 2 response." I was advised within the letter that NHS England will work with the clinical coding groups and NHS Pathways to review this to ensure that the triage and categorisation of ineffective breathing and respiratory distress is consistent across the two triage systems and remains clinically appropriate, for which I am grateful. However, as this has not yet occurred and the two tiered triage system continues to exist, so does my duty to make a report to prevent future deaths in this matter. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable NHS 111 clinical triage algorithms and systems; Unreliable remote assessment and triage of ill infants.

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

Increase clinical support and oversight in 999 Emergency Operations Centres to enable reassessment and potential re-categorisation of high-risk patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the MPDS and NHS Pathways use different triage methodologies, following our review, NHS England is assured that no system changes are required to maintain patient safety and consistency. Both triage systems consistently generate a Category 1 ambulance response for patients presenting with the same high-acuity clinical symptoms. In addition, strengthened clinical oversight within 999 Emergency Operations Centres provides significant further mitigation for patient safety.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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 the MPDS and NHS Pathways triage systems with clinical groups, ambulance services and providers to assess respiratory-distress consistency and clinical appropriateness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Report raises the concern that the triage and categorisation of ineffective breathing and respiratory distress is still not consistent across the two triage systems; NHS Pathways and the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS). NHS England had informed you that a review would be undertaken of this, to ensure that the two triage systems are consistent and remain clinically appropriate. As you have not been informed that the review has occurred, this remains a concern.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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

Continue monitoring triage categorisation and strengthening clinical oversight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There has been a significant increase in clinical support within 999 Emergency Operations Centres, providing enhanced oversight for patients who may not initially receive a Category 1 triage outcome, but who may benefit from clinical reassessment and potential ambulance re-categorisation. This includes patients at the extremes of age and those presenting with symptoms such as severe breathing difficulty.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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

Continue refining and aligning the MPDS and NHS Pathways triage systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England welcomes the feedback from HM Coroner and will continue to refine and align both systems, monitor categorisation, and strengthen clinical oversight. I hope that this further response sufficiently addresses the outstanding concern raised within your Report.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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

Both MPDS and NHS Pathways would produce a category 1 response for another child presenting as Theo did, if triaged appropriately.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The information above confirms that another child presenting as Theo did would result in a category 1 response being reached, when triaged appropriately using either MPDS or NHS Pathways.”

Source location

Response from NHS England (2)
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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 two triage systems use different methodologies but consistently produce the same highest categorisation for patients with the relevant high-acuity symptoms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the MPDS and NHS Pathways use different triage methodologies, following our review, NHS England is assured that no system changes are required to maintain patient safety and consistency. Both triage systems consistently generate a Category 1 ambulance response for patients presenting with the same high-acuity clinical symptoms. In addition, strengthened clinical oversight within 999 Emergency Operations Centres provides significant further mitigation for patient safety.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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

No triage system changes are required because existing clinical oversight and alignment between the systems are considered sufficient to maintain patient safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the MPDS and NHS Pathways use different triage methodologies, following our review, NHS England is assured that no system changes are required to maintain patient safety and consistency. Both triage systems consistently generate a Category 1 ambulance response for patients presenting with the same high-acuity clinical symptoms. In addition, strengthened clinical oversight within 999 Emergency Operations Centres provides significant further mitigation for patient safety.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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.2

  1. 1

    Provide 111 and 999 services with advice on unclear consciousness in under-fives, including immediate call-handler support and cautious triage as unconscious.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 January 2026.
  2. 2

    Discuss the Report at the Regulation 28 Working Group and share its learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 January 2026.

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 111 and 999 services with advice on unclear consciousness in under-fives, including immediate call-handler support and cautious triage as unconscious.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England will provide advice to 111 and 999 services by the end of June to advise that if they are unclear on the level of consciousness of a child under 5 years old, after they have used all the available information (e.g. noise in background), immediate support needs to be in place for the call handler. This support may be a call handling supervisor or clinician. In the advice provided to 111 and 999 services, NHS England will emphasise the importance of cautious and thorough assessment in situations where consciousness is unclear and that a child under 5 years old who is going in and out of consciousness should be triaged as unconscious.”

Source location

Response from NHS England (2)
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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

Discuss the Report at the Regulation 28 Working Group and share its learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. Your Report will be discussed further at the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Theo, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 9 January 2026

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026