PFD report

ALEXANDER LEE REID · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Apr 2024•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
6

Named on the report

Responses found
6

Of 6 recipients

Stated actions
20

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 raised1

  1. Failure of general practice IT systems to validate or challenge potential data input errors at the point of entry
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably validate electronic clinical recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording and availability of patient weight, height and BMI information
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

    Maintain point-of-entry validation restricting extreme height, weight and calculated BMI values in SystmOne.

    Stated by The Phoenix Partnership (Leeds) LtdStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  2. Action

    Contact NHS England separately about validation of calculated BMI data in GP IT systems.

    Stated by The Phoenix Partnership (Leeds) LtdStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  3. Action

    Ask NHS England to consider coordinating funded clinical-safety workshops to document causes, identify controls and define professional requirements for safer system behaviour.

    Stated by Royal College of General PractitionersStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned 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.8

  1. Position

    Existing EMIS Web functionality is sufficient to mitigate the specific data-entry risk, so no further software development is required.

    Stated by EMIS GroupExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 general practice IT systems to validate or challenge potential data input errors at the point of entry

Wider context from the report

“(2) The inquest heard expert evidence that the combined vaccination monitoring and recall specification designed to identify vulnerable people for the purposes of inviting them to receive their Covid vaccinations early had identified Alex as vulnerable from an incorrect BMI of 68.97 recorded in his GP records on 06/02/2004. The mistake was due to the relevant clinician recording Alex's height as 145cm and his weight as 145kg, giving a BMI of 68.97 for an 11 year old boy whose previously recorded BMI aged 9 had been 14.88. (3) The inquest heard expert evidence that to have built a system that would validate multiple data items in an individual's GP records for the purposes of ensuring that individuals were not incorrectly identified as vulnerable would not have been feasible within the constraints and context of the Covid-19 programme. (4) The inquest heard expert evidence that an easier and more appropriate option would be to embed validation rules in general practice IT systems that would check such information at the time of data entry. (5) If the obviously erroneous BMI had not been recorded or had been challenged at the point of entry by the relevant IT system, Alex would not have been classed as vulnerable, would not have been offered a vaccine before guidance was published that the under 30’s should not receive the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine, and would not have died when he did. (6) The consequences of the data input error in this case give rise to a concern that more might be done by way of specification design to allow for the correction of or challenge to potential data input errors at the point of entry, with consequential improvements in the reliability of such data and the safety of patients and reducing the risk of other deaths occurring in similar circumstances in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably validate electronic clinical records; Unreliable recording and availability of patient weight, height and BMI information.

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

Maintain point-of-entry validation restricting extreme height, weight and calculated BMI values in SystmOne.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In SystmOne, there is already validation at the point of entry on height and weight measurements to prevent extreme values being entered. For example, a maximum height of 3 metres can be entered, with the maximum weight being 500 kilograms. Similarly, a calculated BMI is constrained to between 0 and 150. It is not impossible, however, for someone to have a BMI as high as the one that was calculated in this instance. Thus the system must allow such a BMI to be accurately recorded if this is the true calculated BMI.”

Source location

Response from TPP
Page 1 · 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

Contact NHS England separately about validation of calculated BMI data in GP IT systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To return to the specific concern that could be directed to GP system suppliers, should NHS England decide that it would be appropriate to include validation concerning the calculation of BMIs in GP IT systems, the requirements for this would be most appropriately set at a national level to ensure a consistent approach across all GPs. Of course, in the clinical environment there are already a number of alerts, flags, prompts and notifications directed at clinical staff, and consideration would need to be taken to the sensitivity of the validation to ensure this is not triggered so frequently as to cause ‘alert fatigue’.”

Source location

Response from TPP
Page 2 · 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

Ask NHS England to consider coordinating funded clinical-safety workshops to document causes, identify controls and define professional requirements for safer system behaviour.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will ask NHS England to:”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 4 · 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

Ask NHS England to report to the Joint GPIT Committee on addressing the concerns through changes to existing supplier-contract standards and capabilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will ask NHS England to:”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 4 · 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

Existing EMIS Web functionality is sufficient to mitigate the specific data-entry risk, so no further software development is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As detailed above, the System has inbuilt safety principles and is compliant with NHS specifications. Nevertheless, we will continue to review our solutions to determine whether there are changes to be made which would improve their performance.”

Source location

Response from EMIS
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

Cross-domain validation of automatically calculated BMI is not currently implementable, and implementation would present substantial challenges and further clinical risks requiring balanced assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where there is an automated calculation using other data items (such as is the case for BMI), there is no currently implementable means to apply validation – or define normal – across domains. It should also be noted that the ranges of values that may be possible (or probable) for height, weight and BMI vary by age, gender, and may vary by ethnicity.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
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

GP IT systems are centrally assured against the GP IT Futures Framework and statutory clinical safety standards require consideration of data-entry and transmission hazards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Core GP IT records systems are developed - and centrally assured - against standards set out in the GP IT Futures Framework. More information about this can be found here.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
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

Any additional BMI validation requirements should be set nationally by NHS England to ensure consistency across GP systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To return to the specific concern that could be directed to GP system suppliers, should NHS England decide that it would be appropriate to include validation concerning the calculation of BMIs in GP IT systems, the requirements for this would be most appropriately set at a national level to ensure a consistent approach across all GPs. Of course, in the clinical environment there are already a number of alerts, flags, prompts and notifications directed at clinical staff, and consideration would need to be taken to the sensitivity of the validation to ensure this is not triggered so frequently as to cause ‘alert fatigue’.”

Source location

Response from TPP
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

SystmOne already validates height, weight and BMI ranges, and must permit unusually high BMI values when clinically accurate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In SystmOne, there is already validation at the point of entry on height and weight measurements to prevent extreme values being entered. For example, a maximum height of 3 metres can be entered, with the maximum weight being 500 kilograms. Similarly, a calculated BMI is constrained to between 0 and 150. It is not impossible, however, for someone to have a BMI as high as the one that was calculated in this instance. Thus the system must allow such a BMI to be accurately recorded if this is the true calculated BMI.”

Source location

Response from TPP
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

Age-sensitive BMI functionality has not been developed because it is not currently required under NHS framework agreements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It should be noted that, such enhanced functionality (to additionally take into account patient age when recording weight or height for calculation of BMI, including for patients who are under 16 years of age) is not currently among the NHS requirements in the Framework agreements and therefore has not been developed in our clinical solutions.”

Source location

Response from Cegedim
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

Completely preventing entry of a BMI of 68.97 may not be appropriate, limiting use of exclusion thresholds as a data-entry control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a) A warning at the point of entry would be one example of a control mechanism and we agree that it would have been likely that if such a mechanism were in place, those data would not have been recorded in Alex’s record.”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 4 · 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

Building validation of multiple GP-record data items was not feasible within the Covid-19 programme’s speed, safety and delivery constraints.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Issue 3 - The inquest heard expert evidence that to have built a system that would validate multiple data items in an individual’s GP records for the purposes of ensuring that individuals were not incorrectly identified as vulnerable would not have been feasible within the constraints and context of the Covid-19 programme”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

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.16

  1. 1

    Discuss the concerns at the next Joint GP IT Committee meeting, raise awareness of the case, and seek consensus on reducing similar data-entry errors.

    Stated by British Medical AssociationStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  2. 2

    Continue reviewing solutions to identify changes that could improve performance.

    Stated by EMIS GroupStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  3. 3

    Work towards surfacing health-promotion inclusion data to patients through the NHS App for discussion with care providers.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  4. 4

    Continue operating the clinically assured data extraction and validation service for future health promotion activities.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  5. 5

    Develop clinically assured safeguards for central data extraction and patient cohorting, including exclusion of stale data and limitation of extreme values.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  6. 6

    Publish the BMI processing safeguards and explanations used in the COVID-19 Population Risk Assessment.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  7. 7

    Apply BMI data safeguards in population risk assessment, including recency limits, bounded values, correction markers, and a default value when BMI is unavailable.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  8. 8

    Promote the Digital Clinical Safety Strategy and available staff training modules through Primary Care Patient Safety Team channels.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  9. 9

    Operate the Regulation 28 Working Group to discuss reports and share learning about preventable deaths across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  10. 10

    Publish and provide access to patient-safety strategies, syllabus, and digital clinical safety training materials for NHS staff.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  11. 11

    Introduce safeguards supporting Shielded Patient List curation, including GP-record writeback, inclusion lookup, and patient enquiry routes.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  12. 12

    Maintain implemented childhood BMI charts in Vision 3 applications.

    Stated by Cegedim Healthcare SolutionsStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  13. 13

    Highlight through continuing professional development the importance of accurate data entry and systems, and risks when inaccurate data is shared beyond practices.

    Stated by Royal College of General PractitionersStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  14. 14

    Ask NHS England to share the coroner’s report and the response with the New Market Entrants programme for future GP system suppliers.

    Stated by Royal College of General PractitionersStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  15. 15

    Ask the GPITC to consider available reports on UK primary-care clinical-data quality and advise whether a national improvement plan is needed.

    Stated by Royal College of General PractitionersStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  16. 16

    Ask the GPITC to discuss the identified data-quality and clinical-safety matters at its next full committee meeting.

    Stated by Royal College of General PractitionersStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 April 2024.

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

  1. 1

    The historical BMI entry was unlikely to have caused identification as clinically extremely vulnerable because processing safeguards limited extreme or outdated values.

    Stated by NHS EnglandDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    Processes used by local areas to create clinically extremely vulnerable patient lists are subject to local governance and controls and cannot be commented on.

    Stated by NHS EnglandOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  3. 3

    Training staff in safe health IT use and developing supporting policies are responsibilities of local employers, with relevant regulatory bodies monitoring them.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects 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

Discuss the concerns at the next Joint GP IT Committee meeting, raise awareness of the case, and seek consensus on reducing similar data-entry errors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the matters of concern, we propose to discuss these at our next Joint GP IT Committee meeting (which has representatives of the BMA, RCGP and the NHS) to raise awareness of this case and seek a consensus on how systems might evolve to reduce the likelihood of similar data entry errors in the future. Given the complex chain of events of this particularly tragic case, where any one step, had it been different, might have led to a different outcome, we would propose advocating a way forward that addresses the main identified concerns which will transcend this case, namely that patients must know why they have been offered a given treatment and that the decision is sound based on the prevailing medical understanding at the time.”

Source location

Response from BMA
Page 1 · 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

Continue reviewing solutions to identify changes that could improve performance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As detailed above, the System has inbuilt safety principles and is compliant with NHS specifications. Nevertheless, we will continue to review our solutions to determine whether there are changes to be made which would improve their performance.”

Source location

Response from EMIS
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

Work towards surfacing health-promotion inclusion data to patients through the NHS App for discussion with care providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We note the risks that arise from the inaccurate inclusion of data values in cohorting activities and will continue to operate a clinically assured data extraction and validation service to drive future health promotion activities. We will work towards surfacing inclusion data to patients via their NHS App, so that they may discuss their inclusion in health promotions with their care providers.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · 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

Continue operating the clinically assured data extraction and validation service for future health promotion activities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We note the risks that arise from the inaccurate inclusion of data values in cohorting activities and will continue to operate a clinically assured data extraction and validation service to drive future health promotion activities. We will work towards surfacing inclusion data to patients via their NHS App, so that they may discuss their inclusion in health promotions with their care providers.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · 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

Develop clinically assured safeguards for central data extraction and patient cohorting, including exclusion of stale data and limitation of extreme values.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Cohorting of patients drives many systems within the NHS – from vaccinations through to screening. Ensuring accurate and appropriate cohorting ensures the safety and effectiveness of health protection activities.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · 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

Publish the BMI processing safeguards and explanations used in the COVID-19 Population Risk Assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These safety steps were made publicly available at COVID-19 Population Risk Assessment - NHS England Digital:”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · 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

Apply BMI data safeguards in population risk assessment, including recency limits, bounded values, correction markers, and a default value when BMI is unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Issues surrounding this topic were the subject of considerable media interest and discussion at the time of using QCovid®. To support the safety of the process, safeguards were built into the centrally cohorting systems. Regarding the specific issues raised in your Report, these included:”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · 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

Promote the Digital Clinical Safety Strategy and available staff training modules through Primary Care Patient Safety Team channels.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To support the work of the Primary Care Patient Safety Team, we will promote the Digital Clinical Safety Strategy, and all training modules that are available for staff via these channels.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · 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

Operate the Regulation 28 Working Group to discuss reports and share learning about preventable deaths across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by 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 preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · 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

Publish and provide access to patient-safety strategies, syllabus, and digital clinical safety training materials for NHS staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England takes Patient Safety extremely seriously. As such we published our Patient Safety Strategy in July 2019 and have developed the Patient Safety Syllabus, which is accessible to all staff, including those working in General Practice and Primary Care. More information on our Patient Safety Strategy is available here.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · 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

Introduce safeguards supporting Shielded Patient List curation, including GP-record writeback, inclusion lookup, and patient enquiry routes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Due to the speed and scale of the vaccine rollout, at the time safeguards were introduced into the system to enable curation of the SPL. This included:”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · 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

Maintain implemented childhood BMI charts in Vision 3 applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It should also be noted that Childhood BMI charts are implemented in Vision 3 apps (https://help.cegedim-healthcare.co.uk/Vision_3_Apps_Help_Centre/v1.0/Content/C_Apps_Available/Childhood_Growth_Charts_Screen.htm?&copath=Help%20Topics%7CApps%20Available%7CPatient%20Apps%20%7C__5)”

Source location

Response from Cegedim
Page 1 · 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

Highlight through continuing professional development the importance of accurate data entry and systems, and risks when inaccurate data is shared beyond practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For our Members we will highlight through our programme of continuing professional development:”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 5 · 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

Ask NHS England to share the coroner’s report and the response with the New Market Entrants programme for future GP system suppliers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will ask NHS England to:”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 4 · 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

Ask the GPITC to consider available reports on UK primary-care clinical-data quality and advise whether a national improvement plan is needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“d) We will ask the GPITC to consider what existing reports are available on the quality of clinical data in the UK’s primary care records and advise whether or not there is a need for a national clinical data quality improvement plan.”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 5 · 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

Ask the GPITC to discuss the identified data-quality and clinical-safety matters at its next full committee meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As RCGP we will ask the GPITC to discuss these matters at the next full Committee meeting, which is due to be held in July 2024.”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 4 · 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 historical BMI entry was unlikely to have caused identification as clinically extremely vulnerable because processing safeguards limited extreme or outdated values.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Issues surrounding this topic were the subject of considerable media interest and discussion at the time of using QCovid®. To support the safety of the process, safeguards were built into the centrally cohorting systems. Regarding the specific issues raised in your Report, these included:”

Source location

Response from NHS England
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

Processes used by local areas to create clinically extremely vulnerable patient lists are subject to local governance and controls and cannot be commented on.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Local areas were also able to create their own lists of Clinically Extremely Vulnerable patients for shielding. NHS England cannot comment on the processes that were operated at a local level as this would be subject to local governance and controls.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
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

Training staff in safe health IT use and developing supporting policies are responsibilities of local employers, with relevant regulatory bodies monitoring them.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All staff should be trained in the safe use of health IT systems that they use routinely to perform their clinical duties. This is a matter for local employers and the development of policies and procedures to support this are monitored by the relevant regulatory bodies – in the case of health care service providers, this is the Care Quality Commission.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · 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
6/6

Data last updated 7 September 2026