PFD report

Patricia Ann Douglas · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Dec 2020•Cumbria

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

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 raised3

  1. Failure to act on requests for a doctor visit from people feeling very unwell
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable arrangements for requesting and responding to GP home visits
  2. Failure to maintain accurate telephone contact details to support appropriate action after call handling
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain contact with vulnerable people after initial engagement
  3. Failure of initial telephone assessment pathways to give sufficient weight to anaemia and transfusion history
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recognition and assessment of anaemia
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

    Using either COVID-19 or the pre-pandemic breathlessness pathway would have produced the same outcome: clinical assessment within one hour.

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

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 act on requests for a doctor visit from people feeling very unwell

Wider context from the report

“(3) This lady rang for help feeling very unwell, I am told she wanted a doctor to visit, unfortunately nothing happened and it seems very likely that an opportunity to investigate and treat her was missed. I note that two GPs would have been working for the OOH provider at Penrith Hospital –just a mile from Patricia’s home, that Sunday afternoon, one based in the hospital and the other doing home visits. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable arrangements for requesting and responding to GP home visits.

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 accurate telephone contact details to support appropriate action after call handling

Wider context from the report

“(2) The call was closed by CCAS without further action due to an incorrect telephone number being recorded. The call was from an elderly lady who on the face of it seemed significantly unwell. Would referrals in similar circumstances to local providers [GP or out of hours services] who may be better placed to follow up be worth considering? ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain contact with vulnerable people after initial engagement.

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 initial telephone assessment pathways to give sufficient weight to anaemia and transfusion history

Wider context from the report

“(1) The initial assessment by the NHS 111 call handler led her down a pathway leading to a referral to the Covid service and does not seem to have given weight to the history of anaemia and transfusion. Could the pathway be improved to give better guidance to call handlers? ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recognition and assessment of anaemia.

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

Using either COVID-19 or the pre-pandemic breathlessness pathway would have produced the same outcome: clinical assessment within one hour.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of the call, due to the increased pressures on NHS 111 services nationally arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, those patients with symptoms of breathlessness that did not require an ambulance response or referral to an Emergency Department / Urgent Treatment Centre were referred to the COVID Clinical Assessment Service. A clinician would then assess the patient, in this case within a one-hour timeframe, considering potential causes of breathlessness (COVID-19 or otherwise) and other relevant factors such as medical history in order to make an appropriate management plan.”

Source location

2020-0286-Response-from-NHS-Digital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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

Non-clinical health advisors should not exercise clinical discretion; recorded medical history is shared with clinicians for subsequent assessment and decision-making.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where information such as past medical history is declared by the patient, the health advisor is able to document this within NHS Pathways. However, it would not be deemed clinically appropriate for non-clinically trained health advisors to use discretion or make judgements in respect of any medical history described. Instead, where additional medical information is deemed by the health advisor may exit the system at an earlier stage in order to refer the patient for additional clinical assessment within an appropriate timeframe. Any medical information recorded is shared with the receiving clinician to inform their subsequent assessment and decision-making.”

Source location

2020-0286-Response-from-NHS-Digital-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 7 January 2021

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026