PFD report

Mr Stephen Martin Rhodes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Feb 2026•Black Country

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
19

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 raised2

  1. Failure to adequately scrutinise laboratory blood test results
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted uponPart of recurring concern: Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests
  2. Failure to prominently flag abnormal laboratory results
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted uponPart of recurring concern: Unreliable laboratory notification of safety-critical problems and resultsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests
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.11

  1. Action

    Publish guidance and resources supporting safe clinical messaging, test-result handling, clinical decision support and digital clinical safety.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  2. Action

    Pilot safe transmission and ingestion of DAPB4101 pathology reports between laboratories and GP practices.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  3. Action

    Promote wider standardisation of pathology result-flagging conventions.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 February 2026.

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

  1. Position

    Laboratory and GP system suppliers are primarily responsible for pathology result formatting, structure, presentation and display of abnormal results.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects 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

Failure to adequately scrutinise laboratory blood test results

Wider context from the report

“2. My concern is that the blood test results from the laboratory were not adequately scrutinised by the GP. The blood test results reported on the 17 September 2024 showed normal renal function, normal liver function and bone metabolism. However, the NT-Brain Natriuretic Peptide results which are a marker of increased left atrial pressure and screen for heart failure was markedly raised at 3473 (normal expected for this age group < 400). This was reported to the practice and noted in the practice record with the advice from the laboratory to “refer for specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 2 weeks”. 3. The GP giving evidence, described that the Practice could have up to several hundred reports a day. They could not adequately explain how the error occurred. However, one suggestion was that the abnormal results were not found on the top page of the report or highlighted in red. 4. I also heard, evidence that since this incident the laboratory involved has now updated their reporting to ensure that abnormal results are flagged on the first page of the report. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon; Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests.

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 prominently flag abnormal laboratory results

Wider context from the report

“2. My concern is that the blood test results from the laboratory were not adequately scrutinised by the GP. The blood test results reported on the 17 September 2024 showed normal renal function, normal liver function and bone metabolism. However, the NT-Brain Natriuretic Peptide results which are a marker of increased left atrial pressure and screen for heart failure was markedly raised at 3473 (normal expected for this age group < 400). This was reported to the practice and noted in the practice record with the advice from the laboratory to “refer for specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 2 weeks”. 3. The GP giving evidence, described that the Practice could have up to several hundred reports a day. They could not adequately explain how the error occurred. However, one suggestion was that the abnormal results were not found on the top page of the report or highlighted in red. 4. I also heard, evidence that since this incident the laboratory involved has now updated their reporting to ensure that abnormal results are flagged on the first page of the report. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon; Unreliable laboratory notification of safety-critical problems and results; Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests.

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

Publish guidance and resources supporting safe clinical messaging, test-result handling, clinical decision support and digital clinical safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While operational arrangements are managed at individual practice level, NHS England has published several resources available to support safe systems of work, including:”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

Pilot safe transmission and ingestion of DAPB4101 pathology reports between laboratories and GP practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A pilot is underway to establish and prove how a DAPB4101 pathology report can be sent from labs and ingested by GP practices safely. This will involve working with the GP system supplier, and the three pathology middleware suppliers that enable national coverage for lab to GP reporting as well as with Berkshire & Surrey NHS Pathology Services. Once the pilot has completed, implementing DAPB4101 will then go onto NHS England's GP system suppliers’ managed roadmap of development work, leading to national roll-out.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 13 February 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

Promote wider standardisation of pathology result-flagging conventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Pathology Transformation and Interoperability Programme in NHS England is currently undertaking the opportunity to promote:”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 13 February 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

Implement the MY Bot AI triage system to segregate results and alert the duty doctor to urgent abnormal findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. MY Bot AI Triage System (implemented 18 February 2026): The Practice introduced the MY bot AI triage system on 18 February 2026 following a careful, phased assessment to ensure clinical accuracy and safety prior to full adoption. MY bot works by applying an intelligent filter to incoming blood test results, segregating them into two categories: results that require clinical action and results that do not require action. This enables each GP to focus their review directly on results requiring”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 2 · response
Published 13 February 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

Introduce an EMIS Web abnormal-alert framework for critical biomarkers and require documented acknowledgment or reasons for not following referral recommendations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. High-Risk Biomarker Escalation Framework and Abnormal Alert System (18 February 2026): The “Abnormal Alert” system has been introduced within EMIS Web as an additional safety check. A defined list of critical biomarkers – including NT-proBNP, markedly abnormal potassium, CRP, and PSA – has been agreed, with results exceeding defined thresholds flagged for enhanced scrutiny. No result carrying a laboratory recommendation for onward referral may now be filed without documented clinician acknowledgment. Where a referral recommendation is not followed, a documented clinical reason must be recorded.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

Develop and operate a clinical audit programme for significant results and referral completion, including fortnightly, monthly-governance, and quarterly NT-proBNP audits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Clinical Audit Programme (18 February 2026): The Practice has developed a programme of practice-level clinical audits targeting results of high clinical significance, designed to provide ongoing assurance that abnormal results are identified, actioned, and that time-bound referral recommendations are completed within the specified timeframe. The audit programme includes NT-proBNP and BNP,”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

Notify the laboratory of missing NT-proBNP alerts and request corrected reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Laboratory Reporting (actioned 14 March 2025): On 14 March 2025, the Practice wrote to Russells Hall Hospital laboratory to notify them that their reports were not including an alert on raised NT-proBNP results. The laboratory conducted a review and their reports now include an alert when NT-proBNP results are raised. As these results now carry a laboratory red flag indicator, they are correctly identified during the Practice’s manual filtering process and routed into the action-required category for clinical review. The laboratory has also updated its report format so that all abnormal results are flagged on the first page of each report. This change will benefit all practices receiving reports from this laboratory and materially reduces the risk of a similar event occurring across the wider system.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 2 · response
Published 13 February 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

Reissue the Results Management SOP, retaining requesting-clinician responsibility and escalating results unfiled beyond 24 hours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Revised Results Management SOP (18 February 2026): The Results Management Policy has been formally reviewed and reissued. The updated SOP explicitly mandates that the requesting clinician retains responsibility for the review, interpretation, actioning, and filing of all investigation results within 24 hours of availability. An automated alert is generated where results remain unfiled beyond this defined timeframe, with escalation to the clinical lead where defined backlog thresholds are exceeded.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

Introduce cross-filing tasks and secondary review safeguards for results filed by another clinician and specified critical cardiac biomarkers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. Cross-Filing Safeguard and Secondary Review (18 February 2026): Where results are reviewed and filed by a clinician other than the requesting GP, that clinician must send the requesting GP a task to review the results upon their return, ensuring a secondary review by the clinician with full knowledge of the clinical context. A secondary review safeguard has additionally been introduced for specified critical cardiac biomarkers to provide additional oversight where results exceed urgent referral criteria.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

Monitor revised-protocol compliance through monthly clinical governance meetings and formally review change effectiveness at three and six months.

Verbatim wording from the response

“PSA, and other clinically significant markers, to be expanded through ongoing clinical governance review. Audits are conducted on a fortnightly basis with outcomes reported to the monthly clinical governance meeting, at which results management is now a standing agenda item. A quarterly audit of NT-proBNP results and associated referral pathways will be conducted for a 12-month period to provide sustained assurance of compliance. The initial audit has confirmed that no other raised results have been missed.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 4 · response
Published 13 February 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

Introduce mandatory same-day review and documented action for NT-proBNP values exceeding 400.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Mandatory Same-Day Protocol for Raised NT-proBNP (18 February 2026): A mandatory same-day clinical review and documented action protocol has been introduced for all NT-proBNP values exceeding 400 – the threshold above which results are considered abnormal. The Practice has deliberately adopted this more conservative threshold rather than the NICE urgent referral threshold of >2000, to ensure that any raised NT-proBNP result, however early in its trajectory, receives prompt clinical attention on the day of receipt without exception.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

Laboratory and GP system suppliers are primarily responsible for pathology result formatting, structure, presentation and display of abnormal results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The responsibility for the formatting, structure and presentation of pathology results sits primarily with:”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 13 February 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

Individual GP practices manage operational arrangements for reviewing, assigning and acting on pathology results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England recognises the need for robust result review processes are needed at pace in busy practices and the ability to correctly assign and act on results.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

NHS England may review national laboratory guidance on abnormal-result flagging and standardise laboratory alert protocols.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Practice notes that a copy of the Regulation 28 Report has been sent to NHS England and fully supports the Coroner’s suggestion that NHS England may wish to review national guidance for laboratories regarding the flagging of abnormal results. The Practice’s direct experience in this case demonstrates that a laboratory’s failure to flag an abnormal result at source can silently circumvent even well-designed electronic filtering systems at practice level. National standardisation of laboratory alert protocols would represent a meaningful and systemic patient safety improvement. The Practice would welcome any such guidance.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 4 · response
Published 13 February 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.8

  1. 1

    Discuss all received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share relevant learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  2. 2

    Promote adoption of nationally agreed Pathology FHIR Messaging Standards for structured, coded and secure pathology reporting.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  3. 3

    Strengthen digital clinical safety assurance across laboratory information-management and primary-care systems.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  4. 4

    Monitor reported clinical incidents, review Prevention of Future Deaths reports, and feed relevant learning into national patient-safety policy, guidance and training.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  5. 5

    Develop a roadmap for national adoption of the DAPB4101 pathology and laboratory medicine reporting standard.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  6. 6

    Reinforce clinical-context documentation and routinely include patient advice to contact the Practice to check results.

    Stated by Quarry Bank Medical CentreStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  7. 7

    Provide refresher training and share SEA, inquest, and lessons-learned findings through a whole-practice learning session.

    Stated by Quarry Bank Medical CentreStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 February 2026.
  8. 8

    Share the audit framework and learning with practices across the Dudley Primary Care Network.

    Stated by Quarry Bank Medical CentreStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 February 2026.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Third-party robotic pathology-result tools operate outside NHS England’s digital safety assurance work.

    Stated by NHS EnglandOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  2. 2

    The failure was specific to an unflagged NT-proBNP result, rather than a general failure of the Practice’s results-management system.

    Stated by Quarry Bank Medical CentreDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 all received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share relevant learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurance on the 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 events, such as the sad death of Mr Rhodes 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

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 4 · response
Published 13 February 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

Promote adoption of nationally agreed Pathology FHIR Messaging Standards for structured, coded and secure pathology reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“EDIFACT is a legacy product, and NHS England is currently promoting the adoption of a new nationally agreed Pathology Messaging Standards using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR). The new system will:”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 13 February 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

Strengthen digital clinical safety assurance across laboratory information-management and primary-care systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Pathology Transformation and Interoperability Programme in NHS England is currently undertaking the opportunity to promote:”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 13 February 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

Monitor reported clinical incidents, review Prevention of Future Deaths reports, and feed relevant learning into national patient-safety policy, guidance and training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Patient safety is at the heart of NHS England’s role and the 2024 ‘Primary Care Patient Safety Strategy’ describes some of the work and approaches being promoted by NHSE. The Patient Safety Team (clinician’s) and technology teams work in step with one another to support patient safety related to digital systems and technology clinical assurance processes.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

Develop a roadmap for national adoption of the DAPB4101 pathology and laboratory medicine reporting standard.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England’s Pathology FHIR Specification is one of the data products mandated for use in the DAPB4101: Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Reporting Information Standard. The Information Standards Notice (Amd 6/2023) that supports DAPB4101 was issued on 15th April 2024.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 13 February 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

Reinforce clinical-context documentation and routinely include patient advice to contact the Practice to check results.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. Clinical Documentation and Safety Netting (18 February 2026): The Practice has reiterated to all clinical staff the importance of recording the clinical reason for each investigation request in the patient’s record, so that any covering clinician reviewing results does so with full awareness of the clinical context. Safety netting now routinely includes advice to patients to contact the Practice to check their results.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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

Provide refresher training and share SEA, inquest, and lessons-learned findings through a whole-practice learning session.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. Staff Training and Wider Sharing (18 February 2026): Refresher training has been provided to all clinical and administrative staff involved in the results management pathway. The findings of the SEA, the inquest, and the lessons learned have been shared with the wider practice team in a whole-practice learning session. The Practice is actively planning to share the audit framework and learning with all practices within the Dudley Primary Care Network. We note that the laboratory’s updated reporting format, which now flags all abnormal results prominently, will itself materially reduce the risk of a similar event across all practices using Russells Hall Hospital laboratory, further reducing the likelihood of recurrence beyond this Practice’s own boundaries.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 4 · response
Published 13 February 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

Share the audit framework and learning with practices across the Dudley Primary Care Network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. Staff Training and Wider Sharing (18 February 2026): Refresher training has been provided to all clinical and administrative staff involved in the results management pathway. The findings of the SEA, the inquest, and the lessons learned have been shared with the wider practice team in a whole-practice learning session. The Practice is actively planning to share the audit framework and learning with all practices within the Dudley Primary Care Network. We note that the laboratory’s updated reporting format, which now flags all abnormal results prominently, will itself materially reduce the risk of a similar event across all practices using Russells Hall Hospital laboratory, further reducing the likelihood of recurrence beyond this Practice’s own boundaries.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 4 · response
Published 13 February 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

Third-party robotic pathology-result tools operate outside NHS England’s digital safety assurance work.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Some GP practices employ third-party software solutions that use Robotic Process Automation (RPA) to support or automate the handling of both normal and abnormal laboratory results. These RPA tools operate outside of the digital safety assurance work undertaken by NHS England. Some of the major GP records suppliers have introduced significant robotic automation capabilities for laboratory tests within their electronic patient record systems which have been specifically designed to reduce the administrative burden on GPs and improve patient safety. This system, often referred to as "auto-reviewing" or "Pathology Auto-review" automatically processes, files, and, in some cases, manages the follow-up of test results.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 13 February 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 failure was specific to an unflagged NT-proBNP result, rather than a general failure of the Practice’s results-management system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We wish to address the chest X-ray result separately. The X-ray report indicated findings in keeping with suspected COPD, consistent with the clinical indication on the request form. This result was reviewed, acted upon, and followed up: spirometry was requested to confirm the diagnosis and reception staff were tasked with contacting Mr Rhodes to inform him of the results and arrange the necessary referral. The pathway failure in this case was therefore specific to the NT-proBNP result not carrying a laboratory alert flag, rather than reflecting a general failure of results management across the Practice.”

Source location

2026-0083 - Response from Quarry Bank Medical Centre
Page 2 · response
Published 13 February 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026