Kevin Patrick Hoey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Mar 2015•North and East Cambridgeshire

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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.

Concerns raised1

  1. Insufficient training for identifying whether patients are suitable for community treatment or require hospital transfer

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust

    Review the Paramedic Pathfinder Programme to scope implementation within the Trust and assess implications for the current training programme.

  2. East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust

    Consult with EMAS colleagues about the Paramedic Pathfinder Programme.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust

    The initial patient assessment and history were undertaken by another registered EMAS professional, whose clinical steer EEAST clinicians followed.

    Disputes 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

Insufficient training for identifying whether patients are suitable for community treatment or require hospital transfer

Wider context from the report

“East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust should liaise with East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust in relation to training under the EMAS Paramedic Pathfinder Programme, identifying whether a patient is suitable for treatment in the Community or requires hospital transfer, with a view to East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust considering introduction of training similar to that under the EMAS Paramedic Pathfinder Programme. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Review the Paramedic Pathfinder Programme to scope implementation within the Trust and assess implications for the current training programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following your recommendation, the Paramedic Pathfinder Programme has been discussed at the Trust’s Clinical Quality and Safety Group (CQSG), which is attended by the Locality Directors and a number of senior clinical managers. As Chair of CQSG, I requested that the Paramedic Pathfinder Programme be reviewed by a group of clinicians to scope out how this could be implemented within the Trust and what the implications are to our current training programme. This piece of work is currently ongoing.”

Source location

2015-0101-Response-by-East-of-England-Ambulance-Service
Page 1 · response
Published 17 March 2015

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

Consult with EMAS colleagues about the Paramedic Pathfinder Programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the inquest, one of the Trust’s Clinical Managers had already met with our EMAS colleagues and discussed the Paramedic Pathfinder Programme, with a view to suggesting that the Trust consider implementing this training. The Trust welcomes any improvements to support paramedics in their decision making and will be reviewing this case to ensure that learning is embedded to mitigate any chance of this being repeated. The Trust would respectfully like to point out that in a case where the initial patient assessment and history taking was completed by another healthcare professional from EMAS, the EEAST clinicians would have taken a professional steer from this first clinical contact.”

Source location

2015-0101-Response-by-East-of-England-Ambulance-Service
Page 1 · response
Published 17 March 2015

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 initial patient assessment and history were undertaken by another registered EMAS professional, whose clinical steer EEAST clinicians followed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the inquest, one of the Trust’s Clinical Managers had already met with our EMAS colleagues and discussed the Paramedic Pathfinder Programme, with a view to suggesting that the Trust consider implementing this training. The Trust welcomes any improvements to support paramedics in their decision making and will be reviewing this case to ensure that learning is embedded to mitigate any chance of this being repeated. The Trust would respectfully like to point out that in a case where the initial patient assessment and history taking was completed by another healthcare professional from EMAS, the EEAST clinicians would have taken a professional steer from this first clinical contact.”

Source location

2015-0101-Response-by-East-of-England-Ambulance-Service
Page 1 · response
Published 17 March 2015

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026