PFD report

Emma Jayne Langley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Nov 2019•Birmingham and Solihull

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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. Failure to clearly communicate that non-conveyance constitutes rejection of medical advice to distressed patients or their families
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and families
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.3

  1. Action

    Revise the refusal-of-care policy to clarify clinician expectations when patients decline treatment.

    Stated by WMASStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 December 2019.
  2. Action

    Amend the patient discharge advice leaflet to provide clearer guidance for patients left at the scene after ambulance attendance.

    Stated by WMASStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 December 2019.
  3. Action

    Update the electronic patient report software to display a clear refusal-of-treatment, transport or referral statement before signing.

    Stated by WMASStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 December 2019.

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 clearly communicate that non-conveyance constitutes rejection of medical advice to distressed patients or their families

Wider context from the report

“The deceased/her family were keen for her to be admitted to hospital. The paramedic asked the deceased’s partner to sign the ‘non-conveyance’ statement on his EPR tablet after summarising a 1 hour 45 minute attendance. The rejection of medical advice was diluted by other details. The deceased’s partner stated he did not appreciate what he was signing. He was distressed and emotional and the room had been busy with family members, the paramedics and his ill partner. In my judgment, the facts of this case demonstrate the current system of signing a screen on a tablet after a generic summary, does not adequately amplify to a patient/their family (who might be distressed and emotional) they are rejecting medical advice to be admitted to hospital. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and families.

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

Revise the refusal-of-care policy to clarify clinician expectations when patients decline treatment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of the Trusts policy has also been undertaken in relation to the refusal of a patient to receive care and changes have been made to provide clarity to all our clinicians over the expectations on them where a patient declines treatment.”

Source location

2019-0384-Response-by-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2019

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

Amend the patient discharge advice leaflet to provide clearer guidance for patients left at the scene after ambulance attendance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Changes have also been made to the patient discharge advice leaflet which will provide clearer advice and guidance to patients who are left on scene following our attendance.”

Source location

2019-0384-Response-by-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2019

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

Update the electronic patient report software to display a clear refusal-of-treatment, transport or referral statement before signing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response – We are currently in the process of changing the software on our electronic patient report to include a statement that will be visible on the screen where patients, family or carers will see and read prior to signing. This statement clearly sets out that they are signing to acknowledge the refusal for treatment and/or transport to hospital and/or referral for further care against the advice of the attending ambulance clinicians. It also goes on to state that the risks of this has been explained to them by the attending clinicians and they understand those risks.”

Source location

2019-0384-Response-by-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 27 December 2019

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026