PFD report

Gareth Cecil Bickerstaff · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jan 2019•Manchester North

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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. Ambiguous and inconsistent guidance on diagnosis of death and timing of resuscitation decisions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable guidance for decisions to stop or withhold resuscitation
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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

Ambiguous and inconsistent guidance on diagnosis of death and timing of resuscitation decisions

Wider context from the report

“1. During the course of the evidence heard at inquest, it became apparent that there was a critical difference between the language used within the JRCALC Guidance and the local ambulance Trust’s guidance to Paramedics in relation to the diagnosis of death/decision to resuscitate criteria. I was told that whilst Trusts base the drafting of local Guidance/Policy on the JCALC Guidance, they are permitted to use their own language/interpretations. The JCALC Guidance indicates that resuscitation should not be attempted [inter alia] where more than 15 minutes have passed since the onset of cardiac arrest (presumably diagnosed clinically and/or by way of ECG), whereas the local ambulance Trust’s guidance indicates that the 15 minute timeframe should be calculated from the onset of ‘collapse’ (this is not defined further but prima facie is reliant upon bystander observation). I am concerned that in allowing for ‘local interpretation’ and different meanings as to when the 15 minutes is calculated from, there is the potential for misinterpretation, ambiguity and misunderstanding in relation to emergency resuscitation, creating a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable guidance for decisions to stop or withhold resuscitation.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.