PFD report

John Robert Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Dec 2023•Teesside and Hartlepool

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

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 raised5

  1. Failure to adequately check door handles before attempting entry
  2. Failure of internal investigations to elicit the circumstances of relevant operational failures
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
  3. Failure to report relevant operational failure circumstances to the SI author
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.4

  1. Action

    Update the forcible-entry memorandum of understanding and progress it through partner ratification.

    Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 December 2023.
  2. Action

    Train Emergency Operations Centre managers to oversee reasonable entry attempts before requesting forcible entry assistance.

    Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 December 2023.
  3. Action

    Cascade updated forcible-entry procedures, an operational alert and call-handling guidance to relevant staff.

    Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 December 2023.

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

  1. Position

    A taxi was not appropriate because suicidal intent and other red flags made non-clinical transport unsafe.

    Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustDisputes 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 adequately check door handles before attempting entry

Wider context from the report

“1. The attending paramedics had not adequately checked the door handle. It was unlocked. As a result, they waited an extra 30 minutes for the police to arrive in order to gain entry. ”

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

Failure of internal investigations to elicit the circumstances of relevant operational failures

Wider context from the report

“2. The circumstances surrounding the failure to adequately check the door handle was not offered or elicited within the internal investigation. Subsequently it was not reported to the SI author. This issue was not considered within the SI. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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 report relevant operational failure circumstances to the SI author

Wider context from the report

“2. The circumstances surrounding the failure to adequately check the door handle was not offered or elicited within the internal investigation. Subsequently it was not reported to the SI author. This issue was not considered within the SI. ”

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

Failure to consider alternative transport to hospital

Wider context from the report

“3. Consideration was not given to the possibility of sending a taxi to Mr Taylor so he might be conveyed to hospital quickly. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency access to hospital care.

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 the SI to consider relevant operational failure issues

Wider context from the report

“2. The circumstances surrounding the failure to adequately check the door handle was not offered or elicited within the internal investigation. Subsequently it was not reported to the SI author. This issue was not considered within the SI. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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

Update the forcible-entry memorandum of understanding and progress it through partner ratification.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the ongoing efforts to extend the MOU, the Trust have recently, October 2022, provided refresher training to managers within the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) to ensure that their teams/staff follow the agreed process for cases where forcible entry may be required. This includes the arrangements in place via the MOU and also those areas were the primary support for forcible entry remains with the police. This is certainly the case within Cleveland. I have enclosed a copy of the current version of the MOU for your information, albeit this is not currently within the Cleveland area however the same principles for checking doors, windows and neighbours remain the same for our attending crews in the Cleveland area. There is an update currently being applied to the MOU detailing the improvements to the process which is proceeding through the ratification process.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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

Train Emergency Operations Centre managers to oversee reasonable entry attempts before requesting forcible entry assistance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the ongoing efforts to extend the MOU, the Trust have recently, October 2022, provided refresher training to managers within the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) to ensure that their teams/staff follow the agreed process for cases where forcible entry may be required. This includes the arrangements in place via the MOU and also those areas were the primary support for forcible entry remains with the police. This is certainly the case within Cleveland. I have enclosed a copy of the current version of the MOU for your information, albeit this is not currently within the Cleveland area however the same principles for checking doors, windows and neighbours remain the same for our attending crews in the Cleveland area. There is an update currently being applied to the MOU detailing the improvements to the process which is proceeding through the ratification process.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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

Cascade updated forcible-entry procedures, an operational alert and call-handling guidance to relevant staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have enclosed a copy of the updated Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Unscheduled Care Dispatch Staff. The overarching SOPs include an update in relation to forcible entry at pages 83 and 84, plus show the wider processes for completeness. The updated SOPs were cascaded on 4 February 2024. In addition to the SOPs, an Operational Alert has been issued to operational staff, I have enclosed a copy of the alert which was cascaded on 7 February 2024. In addition updated guidance for Call Handling staff was shared on 8 February 2024 which I have enclosed.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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

Implement the Emergency Ambulance Response Validation procedure, including welfare-call prioritisation and documented assessment of suitable alternative transport.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the Management of Long Waits Policy, this policy was removed from use on 25 August 2022 and was replaced with the Procedure for Emergency Ambulance Response Validation and was implemented on 25 August 2022. The new procedure provides a process whereby welfare calls are only required to be made to patients who are alone. In these cases, the clinician is required to update the notes to make it clear when viewing the case list whether a welfare call is required or not by documenting ‘welfare’ or ‘no welfare’.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 7 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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

A taxi was not appropriate because suicidal intent and other red flags made non-clinical transport unsafe.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the inquest you heard verbal evidence from a NEAS Clinical Section Manager who advised that in respect to the call on 18 July 2022, a taxi was not considered and would not have been appropriate given the nature of the call. The review of the clinician’s call undertaken by another Clinical Section Manager, shows that some red flags existed and should have prompted a higher level of caution, therefore the use of a taxi would not be appropriate. This was on the basis that the caller was expressing suicidal intent and plans, therefore not safe or appropriate to send a taxi in these circumstances. We have previously disclosed this report to your office and this was covered during live evidence by the Clinical Section Manager attending the inquest.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 6 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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 attending crew did check the door, and the delay arose from a misunderstanding about whether it was already open.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In respect to enquiries made since the inquest, we have reviewed the call made to the NEAS Emergency Operations Centre by the attending crew. The call is very clear with a member of the crew clearly explaining the efforts made, including checking the door, knocking on windows/door and shouting through the letter box, which were consistent with the written witness statement. One of my senior leadership team has met the crew and raised the matter in respect to the information provided by the police. The recollection of events from the crew is consistent with their witness statements with both crew members stating they had tried to open the door. This accords with the details passed during the conversation with the NEAS Emergency Operations Centre.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 19 December 2023

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Discuss escalation and information-sharing between emergency-service partners at the scheduled Joint Partnership Management Group meeting, using this case to reinforce learning.

    Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 December 2023.
  2. 2

    Continue efforts with partner emergency services to extend the forcible-entry memorandum of understanding into Cleveland, County Durham and Darlington.

    Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 December 2023.
  3. 3

    Present the updated draft forcible-entry memorandum of understanding to partners for consideration at the Joint Partnership Management Group meeting.

    Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 December 2023.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Extending the forcible-entry MOU into Cleveland and other areas cannot be mandated because partner organisations have not committed.

    Stated by North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 escalation and information-sharing between emergency-service partners at the scheduled Joint Partnership Management Group meeting, using this case to reinforce learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In respect to the escalation/sharing of issues between partners this will be discussed at the JPMG meeting on Monday 12 February 2024. The chairperson of the meeting was in attendance at the inquest and spoke with the NEAS crew as well as liaising with a colleague to contact Cleveland Police for their Officers recollections. The process for escalation/sharing issues will be discussed using this case as an example to reinforce the importance of escalation and sharing any issues and/or learning. In addition to this agenda item, we have added the updated draft MOU for consideration by the partners. This is currently focused on those organisations linked with the current MOU, however it is hoped that it may help push the wider adoption of the MOU in Cleveland and County Durham”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 4 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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 efforts with partner emergency services to extend the forcible-entry memorandum of understanding into Cleveland, County Durham and Darlington.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst not directly linked with this case, the Trust have continued to work with other emergency service colleagues in respect to gaining entry. We have an established Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place with Northumbria Police, Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue and Northumberland Fire and Rescue Services. The MOU specifically covers forcible entry and has proven very successful since its inception in 2016. Efforts have continued to extend the MOU into County Durham and Darlington and Cleveland but further work is required as partners are not currently able to commit. I can however assure that this remains a point for discussion and has been escalated with senior colleagues in those organisations. NEAS are not able to mandate this arrangement but continue to advocate the positive impact the MOU has made in other parts of the region.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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

Present the updated draft forcible-entry memorandum of understanding to partners for consideration at the Joint Partnership Management Group meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In respect to the escalation/sharing of issues between partners this will be discussed at the JPMG meeting on Monday 12 February 2024. The chairperson of the meeting was in attendance at the inquest and spoke with the NEAS crew as well as liaising with a colleague to contact Cleveland Police for their Officers recollections. The process for escalation/sharing issues will be discussed using this case as an example to reinforce the importance of escalation and sharing any issues and/or learning. In addition to this agenda item, we have added the updated draft MOU for consideration by the partners. This is currently focused on those organisations linked with the current MOU, however it is hoped that it may help push the wider adoption of the MOU in Cleveland and County Durham”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 4 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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

Extending the forcible-entry MOU into Cleveland and other areas cannot be mandated because partner organisations have not committed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst not directly linked with this case, the Trust have continued to work with other emergency service colleagues in respect to gaining entry. We have an established Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place with Northumbria Police, Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue and Northumberland Fire and Rescue Services. The MOU specifically covers forcible entry and has proven very successful since its inception in 2016. Efforts have continued to extend the MOU into County Durham and Darlington and Cleveland but further work is required as partners are not currently able to commit. I can however assure that this remains a point for discussion and has been escalated with senior colleagues in those organisations. NEAS are not able to mandate this arrangement but continue to advocate the positive impact the MOU has made in other parts of the region.”

Source location

Response from North East Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 19 December 2023

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