Edie Grace Smart · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Jun 2026•Newcastle and North Tyneside

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. Limitation of Ambulance Support Practitioners' airway management training to supervised i-gel use
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid

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. North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

    Implement the Ambulance Support Practitioner role across the Trust.

  2. North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

    Realign non-registered clinical staff scopes through additional education, training and competency assessments.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

    Available data indicates double-ASP crews are first responders in only 1.3% of C1 cases, not often at cardiac arrests.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

    ASP i-gel insertion remains restricted to supervision or direction by a registered healthcare professional because it involves advanced airway risks.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Limitation of Ambulance Support Practitioners' airway management training to supervised i-gel use

Wider context from the report

“Ambulance Support Practitioners are often first on scene on an out of hospital cardiac arrest but are only trained to use i gels to secure a patient's airway under the supervision of a paramedic. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid.

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

Implement the Ambulance Support Practitioner role across the Trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ASP role was introduced as part of a series of changes to NEAS’ workforce, which included a transition away from the Emergency Care Technician and Clinical Care Assistant roles. The purpose of such transition was to establish a trained support workforce to operate within a paramedic-led model of care.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 1 · response
Published 13 August 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

Realign non-registered clinical staff scopes through additional education, training and competency assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ASPs are not registered healthcare professionals but are trained, assessed, and authorised to undertake a defined range of clinical interventions within an established scope of practice. The ASP role was formally implemented across NEAS on 01 November 2024. Since its introduction, all relevant non-registered clinical staff have undergone a process of scope-of-practice realignment, supported by additional education, training, and competency assessments, to ensure that they are”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 1 · response
Published 13 August 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

Available data indicates double-ASP crews are first responders in only 1.3% of C1 cases, not often at cardiac arrests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We would also suggest that it would not be accurate to characterise ASPs as often being first on scene for out of hospital cardiac arrest. Historical NEAS data covering the period of December 2024 to May 2025 identified that, of the 19,608 C1 calls responded to by NEAS during this period, 251 involved a double-ASP response, which is approximately 1.3% of cases. Therefore, whilst the deployment model deliberately allows double-ASP crews to respond first in limited C1 cases, namely where this facilitates an earlier opportunity to deliver immediate life-saving interventions, the available data indicates that this represents a very small proportion of overall ambulance responses to C1 calls and that double-ASP crews are not often first on scene for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 13 August 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

ASP i-gel insertion remains restricted to supervision or direction by a registered healthcare professional because it involves advanced airway risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For this reason, NEAS’ position remains that ASPs may independently undertake the specified basic airway interventions within their authorised scope of practice, whilst the insertion of an i-gel by an ASP should take place under the supervision or direction of a registered healthcare professional, as, for this take place without such supervision, would present an unacceptable level of additional risk to the patient, and unreasonable clinical expectation on ASPs who are not registered healthcare professionals.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 5 · response
Published 13 August 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026