PFD report

Kim Jeannette ROBINSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 31 Jan 2025•Suffolk

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised6

  1. Ease of obtaining online prescriptions
  2. Failure of online prescribers to access patients’ records during consultations
    Part of recurring concern: Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionablePart of recurring concern: Unsafe remote clinical consultations for assessment and advice
  3. Failure to assess suicidal behaviour or thoughts in online consultations
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Unreliable assessment of suicide and self-harm riskPart of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribingPart of recurring concern: Unsafe remote clinical consultations for assessment and advice
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The prescriber is responsible for decisions on prescription quantities, while service providers must maintain adequate controls and may advise on prescription duration.

    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

Ease of obtaining online prescriptions

Wider context from the report

“1. Following Kim’s tragic death the GP who had prescribed the prescription of ████████ to Kim, reviewed the current online system in place and identified five areas where in his evidence he identified changes could be made. The GP stated there was:- a) The need for online prescribers to be able to access a patient’s records (at least the Summary Care Records). These records could be attached to the consultation for review by the prescriber. b) All patients could be asked for consent to share the details of their prescriptions with their current GP and/or regular practitioner. When consent is given, it was suggested a notice should be sent to these healthcare providers at the same time the medicine is delivered to the patient. Without such consent, the patient’s order should not be accepted. c) Prescribers could have the ability to add comments when reviewing a consultation, whether it is approved or vetoed. d) All consultations could include the question: “Have you ever had suicidal behaviour or thoughts?” e) Prescriptions could be also for smaller quantities, taking into account the possible lethal dose of the medicine. If necessary, dispensing should be limited to weekly or reduced frequencies. Had these features been present on the on-line system, the GP stated he would not have issued a prescription of ████████ to Kim. In light of the evidence heard in this case I believe the current system of on-line prescription service needs to be reviewed. 2. It is of note, that the matter of concern regarding the ease in obtaining online prescriptions was previously raised by this court on 15th November 2019 in a Prevention of Future Death report following the tragic death of Deborah Headspeath on 3rd August 2017. ”

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 online prescribers to access patients’ records during consultations

Wider context from the report

“1. Following Kim’s tragic death the GP who had prescribed the prescription of ████████ to Kim, reviewed the current online system in place and identified five areas where in his evidence he identified changes could be made. The GP stated there was:- a) The need for online prescribers to be able to access a patient’s records (at least the Summary Care Records). These records could be attached to the consultation for review by the prescriber. b) All patients could be asked for consent to share the details of their prescriptions with their current GP and/or regular practitioner. When consent is given, it was suggested a notice should be sent to these healthcare providers at the same time the medicine is delivered to the patient. Without such consent, the patient’s order should not be accepted. c) Prescribers could have the ability to add comments when reviewing a consultation, whether it is approved or vetoed. d) All consultations could include the question: “Have you ever had suicidal behaviour or thoughts?” e) Prescriptions could be also for smaller quantities, taking into account the possible lethal dose of the medicine. If necessary, dispensing should be limited to weekly or reduced frequencies. Had these features been present on the on-line system, the GP stated he would not have issued a prescription of ████████ to Kim. In light of the evidence heard in this case I believe the current system of on-line prescription service needs to be reviewed. 2. It is of note, that the matter of concern regarding the ease in obtaining online prescriptions was previously raised by this court on 15th November 2019 in a Prevention of Future Death report following the tragic death of Deborah Headspeath on 3rd August 2017. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable; Unsafe remote clinical consultations for assessment and advice.

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 assess suicidal behaviour or thoughts in online consultations

Wider context from the report

“1. Following Kim’s tragic death the GP who had prescribed the prescription of ████████ to Kim, reviewed the current online system in place and identified five areas where in his evidence he identified changes could be made. The GP stated there was:- a) The need for online prescribers to be able to access a patient’s records (at least the Summary Care Records). These records could be attached to the consultation for review by the prescriber. b) All patients could be asked for consent to share the details of their prescriptions with their current GP and/or regular practitioner. When consent is given, it was suggested a notice should be sent to these healthcare providers at the same time the medicine is delivered to the patient. Without such consent, the patient’s order should not be accepted. c) Prescribers could have the ability to add comments when reviewing a consultation, whether it is approved or vetoed. d) All consultations could include the question: “Have you ever had suicidal behaviour or thoughts?” e) Prescriptions could be also for smaller quantities, taking into account the possible lethal dose of the medicine. If necessary, dispensing should be limited to weekly or reduced frequencies. Had these features been present on the on-line system, the GP stated he would not have issued a prescription of ████████ to Kim. In light of the evidence heard in this case I believe the current system of on-line prescription service needs to be reviewed. 2. It is of note, that the matter of concern regarding the ease in obtaining online prescriptions was previously raised by this court on 15th November 2019 in a Prevention of Future Death report following the tragic death of Deborah Headspeath on 3rd August 2017. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Unreliable assessment of suicide and self-harm risk; Unsafe medication prescribing; Unsafe remote clinical consultations for assessment and advice.

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 limit online prescription quantities according to possible lethal dose

Wider context from the report

“1. Following Kim’s tragic death the GP who had prescribed the prescription of ████████ to Kim, reviewed the current online system in place and identified five areas where in his evidence he identified changes could be made. The GP stated there was:- a) The need for online prescribers to be able to access a patient’s records (at least the Summary Care Records). These records could be attached to the consultation for review by the prescriber. b) All patients could be asked for consent to share the details of their prescriptions with their current GP and/or regular practitioner. When consent is given, it was suggested a notice should be sent to these healthcare providers at the same time the medicine is delivered to the patient. Without such consent, the patient’s order should not be accepted. c) Prescribers could have the ability to add comments when reviewing a consultation, whether it is approved or vetoed. d) All consultations could include the question: “Have you ever had suicidal behaviour or thoughts?” e) Prescriptions could be also for smaller quantities, taking into account the possible lethal dose of the medicine. If necessary, dispensing should be limited to weekly or reduced frequencies. Had these features been present on the on-line system, the GP stated he would not have issued a prescription of ████████ to Kim. In light of the evidence heard in this case I believe the current system of on-line prescription service needs to be reviewed. 2. It is of note, that the matter of concern regarding the ease in obtaining online prescriptions was previously raised by this court on 15th November 2019 in a Prevention of Future Death report following the tragic death of Deborah Headspeath on 3rd August 2017. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Medication quantity controls failing to prevent unsafe access to excessive amounts.

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 prescriber comment functionality for reviewed online consultations

Wider context from the report

“1. Following Kim’s tragic death the GP who had prescribed the prescription of ████████ to Kim, reviewed the current online system in place and identified five areas where in his evidence he identified changes could be made. The GP stated there was:- a) The need for online prescribers to be able to access a patient’s records (at least the Summary Care Records). These records could be attached to the consultation for review by the prescriber. b) All patients could be asked for consent to share the details of their prescriptions with their current GP and/or regular practitioner. When consent is given, it was suggested a notice should be sent to these healthcare providers at the same time the medicine is delivered to the patient. Without such consent, the patient’s order should not be accepted. c) Prescribers could have the ability to add comments when reviewing a consultation, whether it is approved or vetoed. d) All consultations could include the question: “Have you ever had suicidal behaviour or thoughts?” e) Prescriptions could be also for smaller quantities, taking into account the possible lethal dose of the medicine. If necessary, dispensing should be limited to weekly or reduced frequencies. Had these features been present on the on-line system, the GP stated he would not have issued a prescription of ████████ to Kim. In light of the evidence heard in this case I believe the current system of on-line prescription service needs to be reviewed. 2. It is of note, that the matter of concern regarding the ease in obtaining online prescriptions was previously raised by this court on 15th November 2019 in a Prevention of Future Death report following the tragic death of Deborah Headspeath on 3rd August 2017. ”

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 to require consent and notify current or regular practitioners about online prescriptions

Wider context from the report

“1. Following Kim’s tragic death the GP who had prescribed the prescription of ████████ to Kim, reviewed the current online system in place and identified five areas where in his evidence he identified changes could be made. The GP stated there was:- a) The need for online prescribers to be able to access a patient’s records (at least the Summary Care Records). These records could be attached to the consultation for review by the prescriber. b) All patients could be asked for consent to share the details of their prescriptions with their current GP and/or regular practitioner. When consent is given, it was suggested a notice should be sent to these healthcare providers at the same time the medicine is delivered to the patient. Without such consent, the patient’s order should not be accepted. c) Prescribers could have the ability to add comments when reviewing a consultation, whether it is approved or vetoed. d) All consultations could include the question: “Have you ever had suicidal behaviour or thoughts?” e) Prescriptions could be also for smaller quantities, taking into account the possible lethal dose of the medicine. If necessary, dispensing should be limited to weekly or reduced frequencies. Had these features been present on the on-line system, the GP stated he would not have issued a prescription of ████████ to Kim. In light of the evidence heard in this case I believe the current system of on-line prescription service needs to be reviewed. 2. It is of note, that the matter of concern regarding the ease in obtaining online prescriptions was previously raised by this court on 15th November 2019 in a Prevention of Future Death report following the tragic death of Deborah Headspeath on 3rd August 2017. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPs; Unreliable consent controls for safety-critical information sharing.

Open source report

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 prescriber is responsible for decisions on prescription quantities, while service providers must maintain adequate controls and may advise on prescription duration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Relevant to your concern that ‘prescriptions could be also for smaller quantities, taking into account the possible lethal dose of the medicine. If necessary, dispensing should be limited to weekly or reduced frequencies’, The responsibility for prescribing rests with the prescriber who has clinical responsibility for that particular aspect of a patient’s care. Issuing shorter prescriptions could give the prescriber the opportunity to review the patient’s medicines, which is important for some groups of patients and may therefore be particularly appropriate in some cases. The service provider, whether NHS commissioner or private sector provider has a responsibility to ensure that adequate controls are in place, and they may also issue advice to prescribers about the length of time for which prescriptions should be issued.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 3 · response
Published 31 January 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

If an appropriate organisation requires a standardised suicidal-behaviour question, the GPhC would monitor its inclusion through inspections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In your report you suggest that all consultations could include the question: “Have you ever had suicidal behaviour or thoughts?” On this point, the GPhC expects pharmacies to carry out a risk assessment for every part of the service they provide. If an appropriate organisation stated that this question should be included, then the GPhC would monitor this through its inspection processes.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 3 · response
Published 31 January 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.3

  1. 1

    Recruit 8,500 new mental health workers to support people at risk of suicide.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 January 2025.
  2. 2

    Continue delivering the cross-sector Suicide Prevention Strategy for England, including targeted action for people who self-harm or contact mental health services.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 31 January 2025.
  3. 3

    Train the 8,500 new mental health workers to support people at risk and reduce suicide deaths.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 January 2025.

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

  1. 1

    Professional regulators, the CQC and MHRA have powers to investigate and act against prescribers, products and suppliers breaching legislation or guidance.

    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 respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Recruit 8,500 new mental health workers to support people at risk of suicide.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Lastly, I would like to assure you that we are committed to tackling suicide as one the biggest killers in this country. As part of this, the 8,500 new mental health workers we will recruit will be trained to support people at risk to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 4 · response
Published 31 January 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

Continue delivering the cross-sector Suicide Prevention Strategy for England, including targeted action for people who self-harm or contact mental health services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are also committed to continuing to deliver the cross-sector Suicide Prevention Strategy for England published in 2023. This identifies a number of groups for tailored or targeted action at a national level, including people who have self-harmed and people in contact with mental health services.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 4 · response
Published 31 January 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

Train the 8,500 new mental health workers to support people at risk and reduce suicide deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Lastly, I would like to assure you that we are committed to tackling suicide as one the biggest killers in this country. As part of this, the 8,500 new mental health workers we will recruit will be trained to support people at risk to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 4 · response
Published 31 January 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

Professional regulators, the CQC and MHRA have powers to investigate and act against prescribers, products and suppliers breaching legislation or guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where relevant, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and other professional regulators, Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have the powers to investigate and take action against prescribers, products and suppliers who do not comply with legislation and national guidance.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 2 · response
Published 31 January 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026