Andrew Ewin-Ripp · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Apr 2024•East London

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
7

Described in 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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised7

  1. Failure to require practitioners to pass essential epilepsy information to patients on discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  2. Lack of guidance on contacting the secondary care team after recurrent seizures
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carersPart of recurring concern: Unreliable seizure care and management
  3. Lack of discharge guidance on maintaining medication compliance despite prolonged seizure freedom
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable seizure care and management

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.7

  1. NHS England

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

  2. NHS England

    Share the Coroner’s Report with regional London colleagues for review.

  3. Royal College of General Practitioners

    Publish neurology education covering transient loss of consciousness and epilepsy.

  4. Royal College of General Practitioners

    Provide members with SUDEP and seizure-safety education, including epilepsy-review and safety-checklist resources.

  5. Royal College of General Practitioners

    Maintain a GP curriculum clinical topic guide covering neurology.

  6. Royal College of General Practitioners

    Provide an epilepsy diagnosis and management learning module and podcast promoting regular annual review.

  7. Royal College of Physicians

    Continue advocating for expansion of the neurology workforce.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. NHS England

    GP practices are required to follow clinical guidelines that include annual epilepsy reviews.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. NHS England

    NICE is responsible for guidelines on long-term epilepsy monitoring and urgent neurology review pathways.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. NHS England

    Existing requirements provide for at least annual medication reviews for patients receiving repeated epilepsy medication.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  4. Royal College of General Practitioners

    Commissioning general practice services is the responsibility of NHS England, not the respondent.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  5. Royal College of Physicians

    Specific discharge timing recommendations cannot be made because appropriate timing depends on multiple patient-specific variables.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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 require practitioners to pass essential epilepsy information to patients on discharge

Wider context from the report

“There are believed to be around 500-600 SUDEP deaths in the UK each year. SUDEP deaths are common in young adults. The waiting times for outpatient neurology appointments is in the region of 9 months for the trust concerned. The inquest heard from an independent expert that it is not unusual to have waiting times of more than 6 months for outpatient neurology appointments. In the context of these lengthy waiting times, the following matters were of particular concern: (1) GP practices are not required to carry out annual reviews of epilepsy patients, as they are, for other chronic diseases. The independent consultant neurologist considered that annual reviews by general practitioners would provide an excellent safety net to prevent future SUDEP deaths. The reviews could incorporate checks on compliance with medication; reviews of any seizure activity and reminder of ways to reduce the risk of seizures. (2) There is clear national guidance in relation to how quickly patients should be seen following a first seizure, but no clear guidance around the longer-term monitoring of patients with epilepsy. How soon after the last seizure is it safe to discharge a patient? There is no clear guidance on this. (3) After discharge from the secondary care team, there was no clear guidance provided in relation to the importance of maintaining full compliance with medication even if seizure free for a very long period; the importance of notifying the GP and/or the secondary care team about the recurrence of any seizure activity or clear guidance on how best to make contact with the secondary care team in the event of recurrence of seizures. There was no system in place, or guidance, requiring practitioners to ensure that this essential information is passed to patients on discharge. (4) There was no care pathway for incorporating urgent reviews in neurology clinics in response to patients reporting concerns, such as a return of seizures or not tolerating medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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

Lack of guidance on contacting the secondary care team after recurrent seizures

Wider context from the report

“There are believed to be around 500-600 SUDEP deaths in the UK each year. SUDEP deaths are common in young adults. The waiting times for outpatient neurology appointments is in the region of 9 months for the trust concerned. The inquest heard from an independent expert that it is not unusual to have waiting times of more than 6 months for outpatient neurology appointments. In the context of these lengthy waiting times, the following matters were of particular concern: (1) GP practices are not required to carry out annual reviews of epilepsy patients, as they are, for other chronic diseases. The independent consultant neurologist considered that annual reviews by general practitioners would provide an excellent safety net to prevent future SUDEP deaths. The reviews could incorporate checks on compliance with medication; reviews of any seizure activity and reminder of ways to reduce the risk of seizures. (2) There is clear national guidance in relation to how quickly patients should be seen following a first seizure, but no clear guidance around the longer-term monitoring of patients with epilepsy. How soon after the last seizure is it safe to discharge a patient? There is no clear guidance on this. (3) After discharge from the secondary care team, there was no clear guidance provided in relation to the importance of maintaining full compliance with medication even if seizure free for a very long period; the importance of notifying the GP and/or the secondary care team about the recurrence of any seizure activity or clear guidance on how best to make contact with the secondary care team in the event of recurrence of seizures. There was no system in place, or guidance, requiring practitioners to ensure that this essential information is passed to patients on discharge. (4) There was no care pathway for incorporating urgent reviews in neurology clinics in response to patients reporting concerns, such as a return of seizures or not tolerating medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carers; Unreliable seizure care and management.

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

Lack of discharge guidance on maintaining medication compliance despite prolonged seizure freedom

Wider context from the report

“There are believed to be around 500-600 SUDEP deaths in the UK each year. SUDEP deaths are common in young adults. The waiting times for outpatient neurology appointments is in the region of 9 months for the trust concerned. The inquest heard from an independent expert that it is not unusual to have waiting times of more than 6 months for outpatient neurology appointments. In the context of these lengthy waiting times, the following matters were of particular concern: (1) GP practices are not required to carry out annual reviews of epilepsy patients, as they are, for other chronic diseases. The independent consultant neurologist considered that annual reviews by general practitioners would provide an excellent safety net to prevent future SUDEP deaths. The reviews could incorporate checks on compliance with medication; reviews of any seizure activity and reminder of ways to reduce the risk of seizures. (2) There is clear national guidance in relation to how quickly patients should be seen following a first seizure, but no clear guidance around the longer-term monitoring of patients with epilepsy. How soon after the last seizure is it safe to discharge a patient? There is no clear guidance on this. (3) After discharge from the secondary care team, there was no clear guidance provided in relation to the importance of maintaining full compliance with medication even if seizure free for a very long period; the importance of notifying the GP and/or the secondary care team about the recurrence of any seizure activity or clear guidance on how best to make contact with the secondary care team in the event of recurrence of seizures. There was no system in place, or guidance, requiring practitioners to ensure that this essential information is passed to patients on discharge. (4) There was no care pathway for incorporating urgent reviews in neurology clinics in response to patients reporting concerns, such as a return of seizures or not tolerating medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable seizure care and management.

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

Lack of required annual epilepsy reviews in general practice

Wider context from the report

“There are believed to be around 500-600 SUDEP deaths in the UK each year. SUDEP deaths are common in young adults. The waiting times for outpatient neurology appointments is in the region of 9 months for the trust concerned. The inquest heard from an independent expert that it is not unusual to have waiting times of more than 6 months for outpatient neurology appointments. In the context of these lengthy waiting times, the following matters were of particular concern: (1) GP practices are not required to carry out annual reviews of epilepsy patients, as they are, for other chronic diseases. The independent consultant neurologist considered that annual reviews by general practitioners would provide an excellent safety net to prevent future SUDEP deaths. The reviews could incorporate checks on compliance with medication; reviews of any seizure activity and reminder of ways to reduce the risk of seizures. (2) There is clear national guidance in relation to how quickly patients should be seen following a first seizure, but no clear guidance around the longer-term monitoring of patients with epilepsy. How soon after the last seizure is it safe to discharge a patient? There is no clear guidance on this. (3) After discharge from the secondary care team, there was no clear guidance provided in relation to the importance of maintaining full compliance with medication even if seizure free for a very long period; the importance of notifying the GP and/or the secondary care team about the recurrence of any seizure activity or clear guidance on how best to make contact with the secondary care team in the event of recurrence of seizures. There was no system in place, or guidance, requiring practitioners to ensure that this essential information is passed to patients on discharge. (4) There was no care pathway for incorporating urgent reviews in neurology clinics in response to patients reporting concerns, such as a return of seizures or not tolerating medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide required annual primary-care health reviews.

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

Lack of a care pathway for urgent neurology reviews in response to patient concerns

Wider context from the report

“There are believed to be around 500-600 SUDEP deaths in the UK each year. SUDEP deaths are common in young adults. The waiting times for outpatient neurology appointments is in the region of 9 months for the trust concerned. The inquest heard from an independent expert that it is not unusual to have waiting times of more than 6 months for outpatient neurology appointments. In the context of these lengthy waiting times, the following matters were of particular concern: (1) GP practices are not required to carry out annual reviews of epilepsy patients, as they are, for other chronic diseases. The independent consultant neurologist considered that annual reviews by general practitioners would provide an excellent safety net to prevent future SUDEP deaths. The reviews could incorporate checks on compliance with medication; reviews of any seizure activity and reminder of ways to reduce the risk of seizures. (2) There is clear national guidance in relation to how quickly patients should be seen following a first seizure, but no clear guidance around the longer-term monitoring of patients with epilepsy. How soon after the last seizure is it safe to discharge a patient? There is no clear guidance on this. (3) After discharge from the secondary care team, there was no clear guidance provided in relation to the importance of maintaining full compliance with medication even if seizure free for a very long period; the importance of notifying the GP and/or the secondary care team about the recurrence of any seizure activity or clear guidance on how best to make contact with the secondary care team in the event of recurrence of seizures. There was no system in place, or guidance, requiring practitioners to ensure that this essential information is passed to patients on discharge. (4) There was no care pathway for incorporating urgent reviews in neurology clinics in response to patients reporting concerns, such as a return of seizures or not tolerating medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Lack of discharge guidance on notifying clinicians about recurrent seizures

Wider context from the report

“There are believed to be around 500-600 SUDEP deaths in the UK each year. SUDEP deaths are common in young adults. The waiting times for outpatient neurology appointments is in the region of 9 months for the trust concerned. The inquest heard from an independent expert that it is not unusual to have waiting times of more than 6 months for outpatient neurology appointments. In the context of these lengthy waiting times, the following matters were of particular concern: (1) GP practices are not required to carry out annual reviews of epilepsy patients, as they are, for other chronic diseases. The independent consultant neurologist considered that annual reviews by general practitioners would provide an excellent safety net to prevent future SUDEP deaths. The reviews could incorporate checks on compliance with medication; reviews of any seizure activity and reminder of ways to reduce the risk of seizures. (2) There is clear national guidance in relation to how quickly patients should be seen following a first seizure, but no clear guidance around the longer-term monitoring of patients with epilepsy. How soon after the last seizure is it safe to discharge a patient? There is no clear guidance on this. (3) After discharge from the secondary care team, there was no clear guidance provided in relation to the importance of maintaining full compliance with medication even if seizure free for a very long period; the importance of notifying the GP and/or the secondary care team about the recurrence of any seizure activity or clear guidance on how best to make contact with the secondary care team in the event of recurrence of seizures. There was no system in place, or guidance, requiring practitioners to ensure that this essential information is passed to patients on discharge. (4) There was no care pathway for incorporating urgent reviews in neurology clinics in response to patients reporting concerns, such as a return of seizures or not tolerating medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable seizure care and management.

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

Lack of clear guidance on longer-term epilepsy monitoring and safe discharge timing

Wider context from the report

“There are believed to be around 500-600 SUDEP deaths in the UK each year. SUDEP deaths are common in young adults. The waiting times for outpatient neurology appointments is in the region of 9 months for the trust concerned. The inquest heard from an independent expert that it is not unusual to have waiting times of more than 6 months for outpatient neurology appointments. In the context of these lengthy waiting times, the following matters were of particular concern: (1) GP practices are not required to carry out annual reviews of epilepsy patients, as they are, for other chronic diseases. The independent consultant neurologist considered that annual reviews by general practitioners would provide an excellent safety net to prevent future SUDEP deaths. The reviews could incorporate checks on compliance with medication; reviews of any seizure activity and reminder of ways to reduce the risk of seizures. (2) There is clear national guidance in relation to how quickly patients should be seen following a first seizure, but no clear guidance around the longer-term monitoring of patients with epilepsy. How soon after the last seizure is it safe to discharge a patient? There is no clear guidance on this. (3) After discharge from the secondary care team, there was no clear guidance provided in relation to the importance of maintaining full compliance with medication even if seizure free for a very long period; the importance of notifying the GP and/or the secondary care team about the recurrence of any seizure activity or clear guidance on how best to make contact with the secondary care team in the event of recurrence of seizures. There was no system in place, or guidance, requiring practitioners to ensure that this essential information is passed to patients on discharge. (4) There was no care pathway for incorporating urgent reviews in neurology clinics in response to patients reporting concerns, such as a return of seizures or not tolerating medication. ”

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

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

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on 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 preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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 Coroner’s Report with regional London colleagues for review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Report has been shared with my regional London colleagues for their review.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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

Publish neurology education covering transient loss of consciousness and epilepsy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“▪ Neurology Essentials We published a Neurology One day Essentials update in February 2024, following a live conference which included a section on ‘Transient loss of consciousness and Epilepsy’. Available for 6 months following registration.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of General Practitioners
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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 members with SUDEP and seizure-safety education, including epilepsy-review and safety-checklist resources.

Verbatim wording from the response

“▪ SUDEP We currently have a resource available to members specifically on SUDEP and Seizure Safety (first produced in 2016 and updated in 2021). https://sudep.org/article/sudep-action-rcgp-launch-sudep-e-learning. It emphasises the role of General Practice in carrying out Epilepsy reviews using video and case studies in a 30min online resource. It highlights the use of the SUDEP and Seizure safety checklist https://sudep.org/checklist with resources for both professionals and patients. This course is free to access to all 54,000 RCGP members.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of General Practitioners
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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

Maintain a GP curriculum clinical topic guide covering neurology.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1) Education and Continuing Professional Development The RCGP has a role in developing the Curriculum for new GPs as well as providing ongoing continuing professional development (CPD) support for qualified members. The GP curriculum includes Neurology within its clinical topic guides https://www.rcgp.org.uk/mrcgp-exams/gp-curriculum/clinical-topic-guides. The College offers extensive support for CPD to members in different formats and we would like to highlight three relevant resources which are currently available to members:”

Source location

Response from Royal College of General Practitioners
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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 an epilepsy diagnosis and management learning module and podcast promoting regular annual review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“▪ Epilepsy Diagnosis and Management We also have a series of regular Essential Knowledge Updates. In our Update 17 (April 2016 updated April 2024) there is a specific module on Epilepsy Diagnosis and management. A podcast freely available to all in which ████████ talks about and promotes the e learning module highlighting the importance of regular annual review (EKU17: Epilepsy https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/eku17-epilepsy/id1474942018?i=1000453462614 )”

Source location

Response from Royal College of General Practitioners
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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

Continue advocating for expansion of the neurology workforce.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Royal College of Physicians supports the position of Association of British Neurologists and continues to advocate for an expansion in the neurology workforce.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Physicians
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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

GP practices are required to follow clinical guidelines that include annual epilepsy reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Report raised the concern that GP Practices are not required to carry out annual reviews of epilepsy patients. GP Practices required to follow and pay due regard to clinical guidelines. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued clinical guidelines to general practice on annual reviews, including for Epilepsy.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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

NICE is responsible for guidelines on long-term epilepsy monitoring and urgent neurology review pathways.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your Report also raises the concerns that there is no clear guidance for the long-term monitoring of patients with epilepsy and that there was no care pathway for incorporating urgent reviews in neurology clinics in response to patients reporting concerns. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are responsible for the relevant guidelines: Epilepsies in children, young people and adults (nice.org.uk). Most patients with epilepsy will be discharged from follow-up once they are free of seizures for 12 months. At this point, their medication would only be changed if they had further seizures or other issues arise (such as possible adverse effects or consideration of pregnancy). Some patients with additional issues would be monitored for longer (see section 4.5.1 of the guidance).”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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

Existing requirements provide for at least annual medication reviews for patients receiving repeated epilepsy medication.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding your concern about medication compliance, patients on medication should have their medications reviewed at least on an annual basis. The General Medical Council’s guidance for Good practice in prescribing and managing medicines and devices - professional standards - GMC (gmc-uk.org) states (Subsection 93): “Whether you prescribe with repeats or on a one-off basis, you must make sure that suitable arrangements are in place for monitoring, follow-up and review. You should”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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

Commissioning general practice services is the responsibility of NHS England, not the respondent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The College is not responsible for Commissioning Services from General Practice. In England this role falls to NHS England. General Practice has however been funded for Epilepsy management through the GMS contract and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) since 2004. There is a requirement to maintain a register of adults receiving drug treatment for Epilepsy (EP001). Between 2004 and 2014 there were 2 additional indicators which fell out of the annual review process i.e. those who were seizure free (EP002) and the number of women receiving information and counselling about reproductive issues (EP003). The EP002 and EP003 indicators were retired in 2014 by NHS England. There has just been a Government Consultation which closed on the 7ᵗʰ March around the future of incentives in General Practice including QOF so there may be changes in coming years.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of General Practitioners
Page 3 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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

Specific discharge timing recommendations cannot be made because appropriate timing depends on multiple patient-specific variables.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• For guidance on longer term monitoring of people with epilepsy, and safe discharge timing it is not possible to provide guidance on this that suits all patients with epilepsy as it depends on many variables. The ABN therefore do not feel that it would be appropriate to make specific recommendations regarding timing for discharge. Many patients are now enrolled in patient-initiated follow-up schemes (or equivalent) rather than being fully discharged. Fewer routine reviews may aid seeing people when most needed.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Physicians
Page 1 · response
Published 4 April 2024

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026