PFD report

Tracy Frances MCCARTHY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 May 2024•Inner North London

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 raised5

  1. Prescribing of amitriptyline above the maximum suggested dose for a patient known to be dependent on it
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to individualise medication doses to patient-specific factorsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safeguards against misuse of medicines with abuse potentialPart of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
  2. Failure to maintain daily amitriptyline dispensing to mitigate overdose risk
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribingPart of recurring concern: Medication quantity controls failing to prevent unsafe access to excessive amounts
  3. Failure to flag the overdose risk and stop continued amitriptyline prescribing
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribingPart of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
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

    Conduct regular reviews of registered patients and the overall framework, documenting, minuting, and circulating review outcomes.

    Stated by Tredegar PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2024.
  2. Action

    Identify eligible complex patients, add them to the Risk Management & Care Planning Register, and create corresponding care plans and EMIS alerts.

    Stated by Tredegar PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2024.

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

Prescribing of amitriptyline above the maximum suggested dose for a patient known to be dependent on it

Wider context from the report

“(1) Although Amitriptyline is not generally regarded as a drug of abuse, Ms McCarthy was known to be dependent on it. She had been prescribed Amitriptyline for many years, and at one stage in or about 2022, she was regularly prescribed ████████ mg per day, which is over the maximum suggested dose in the BNF (150mg per day). In addition, the BNF provides a clear warning (as did the prescribing/records software in use at The Tredegar Practice) that Amitriptyline prescribed for depression (which it was in this case), is “not recommended – increased risk of fatality in overdose”. A GP from The Tredegar Practice told me that ████████ mg was an “unacceptable dose”. The concern being that guidelines were not followed, particularly in relation to a patient known to be dependent and where use of Amitriptyline was not recommended for the presenting condition in any event. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to individualise medication doses to patient-specific factors; Inadequate safeguards against misuse of medicines with abuse potential; Unsafe medication prescribing.

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 maintain daily amitriptyline dispensing to mitigate overdose risk

Wider context from the report

“(3) Ms McCarthy’s Amitriptyline prescriptions had previously been issued on a daily basis, to mitigate the risk of overdose. However, following her admission to hospital (mentioned above) a GP at The Tredegar Practice took the decision to reduce the dose slightly, but transfer to monthly prescriptions, thereby allowing Ms McCarthy access to 28 days’ worth of Amitriptyline all at once. A GP from The Tredegar Practice told me that they thought this was “risky” but said that the GP who made that decision was not familiar with the patient and maybe wouldn’t have known the rationale for daily prescriptions. They also told me that the Practice was probably “over-reliant on the knowledge of particular doctors that treated her.” The concern is that too great an emphasis was placed on the knowledge of a few individuals, which led to acknowledged risks not being put in the records in a way that would alert any practitioner to them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribing; 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

Failure to flag the overdose risk and stop continued amitriptyline prescribing

Wider context from the report

“(2) Following Ms McCarthy’s admission to hospital as a result of an overdose of Amitriptyline and Codeine, The Tredegar Practice received information from the hospital, making reference to the overdose. Despite this, the risk was not flagged and no alert was put on the system; as such, the prescription of Amitriptyline continued. A GP from The Tredegar Practice told me, “[the Amitriptyline] should have been stopped, but knowing [the patient] that would have been very hard to do.” ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribing; Unsafe medication prescribing.

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 record acknowledged amitriptyline risks in an accessible way for all practitioners

Wider context from the report

“(3) Ms McCarthy’s Amitriptyline prescriptions had previously been issued on a daily basis, to mitigate the risk of overdose. However, following her admission to hospital (mentioned above) a GP at The Tredegar Practice took the decision to reduce the dose slightly, but transfer to monthly prescriptions, thereby allowing Ms McCarthy access to 28 days’ worth of Amitriptyline all at once. A GP from The Tredegar Practice told me that they thought this was “risky” but said that the GP who made that decision was not familiar with the patient and maybe wouldn’t have known the rationale for daily prescriptions. They also told me that the Practice was probably “over-reliant on the knowledge of particular doctors that treated her.” The concern is that too great an emphasis was placed on the knowledge of a few individuals, which led to acknowledged risks not being put in the records in a way that would alert any practitioner to them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to keep historical risk information accessible for later risk assessment; Unreliable clinical safety-alert systems.

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

Prescribing of amitriptyline for depression despite its increased risk of fatality in overdose

Wider context from the report

“(1) Although Amitriptyline is not generally regarded as a drug of abuse, Ms McCarthy was known to be dependent on it. She had been prescribed Amitriptyline for many years, and at one stage in or about 2022, she was regularly prescribed ████████ mg per day, which is over the maximum suggested dose in the BNF (150mg per day). In addition, the BNF provides a clear warning (as did the prescribing/records software in use at The Tredegar Practice) that Amitriptyline prescribed for depression (which it was in this case), is “not recommended – increased risk of fatality in overdose”. A GP from The Tredegar Practice told me that ████████ mg was an “unacceptable dose”. The concern being that guidelines were not followed, particularly in relation to a patient known to be dependent and where use of Amitriptyline was not recommended for the presenting condition in any event. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribing; Unsafe medication prescribing.

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

Conduct regular reviews of registered patients and the overall framework, documenting, minuting, and circulating review outcomes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Reviews: regular reviews will be needed in the process.”

Source location

Response from The GP Partners
Page 4 · response
Published 23 May 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

Identify eligible complex patients, add them to the Risk Management & Care Planning Register, and create corresponding care plans and EMIS alerts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Identification of patients to be entered into the framework.”

Source location

Response from The GP Partners
Page 2 · response
Published 23 May 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.4

  1. 1

    Appoint a GP lead to schedule, oversee, document, and follow up the framework’s reviews and resulting actions.

    Stated by Tredegar PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2024.
  2. 2

    Present the framework at the scheduled GP Shared meeting for further suggestions before implementation.

    Stated by Tredegar PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2024.
  3. 3

    Continue developing the risk management and care planning framework through further iterations.

    Stated by Tredegar PracticeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 May 2024.
  4. 4

    Provide systematic training so practice and locum clinical staff understand the framework and its rationale.

    Stated by Tredegar PracticeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2024.

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

Appoint a GP lead to schedule, oversee, document, and follow up the framework’s reviews and resulting actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. To ensure that this framework remains active and effective, a GP lead for the framework/process will be appointed. The role of this GP will be to ensure that the”

Source location

Response from The GP Partners
Page 4 · response
Published 23 May 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

Present the framework at the scheduled GP Shared meeting for further suggestions before implementation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This draft has been reviewed by ████████ and ████████. It will be presented at the next GP Shared meeting (17 July 2024). Additional suggestions are likely to arise, and the next iteration of the framework will be created, and steps taken to implement the framework.”

Source location

Response from The GP Partners
Page 5 · response
Published 23 May 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 developing the risk management and care planning framework through further iterations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“By framework I mean a process involving a number of elements: a clear purpose; training; documentation; planned review; quality assurance (is the process being carried out reliably, as intended?); quality control (are improvements to the process needed?).”

Source location

Response from The GP Partners
Page 2 · response
Published 23 May 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 systematic training so practice and locum clinical staff understand the framework and its rationale.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. All GPs, practice nurses, nurse practitioners, and other clinical staff working at the practice be aware of the framework and its rationale. Locum GPs will also need to be aware of the framework. This will require a systematic training. (It should be possible for this to be done efficiently, without adding significantly to the staffs’ considerable workload.)”

Source location

Response from The GP Partners
Page 2 · response
Published 23 May 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026