PFD report

William Robert Raymond Nute · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 May 2016•Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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 raised4

  1. Failure to appropriately manage the incident scene and patient safety and dignity
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable management and control of emergency incident scenes
  2. Delays in attending and transferring emergency patients
  3. Failure to inform police of road traffic accidents in a timely fashion
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.2

  1. Action

    Participate in cross-emergency-service forums to discuss and address operational issues, incidents and improvements to collaborative working and communication.

    Stated by South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 June 2016.
  2. Action

    Participate as a trial site in the Ambulance Response Programme’s new call-coding system.

    Stated by South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 June 2016.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The original emergency call was triaged correctly, achieving 97% compliance against the applicable 86% pass rate.

    Stated by South Western 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 appropriately manage the incident scene and patient safety and dignity

Wider context from the report

“That South Western Ambulance did not inform the police of a road traffic accident in a timely fashion resulting in the scene of the incident/patient and late arrival of the ambulance not being managed appropriately. For example the witnesses to the road traffic accident were left waiting a good number of hours for the police to arrive to provide their details to them and there was no one to professionally manage the safety/dignity of Mr Nute who was lying on the highway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable management and control of emergency incident scenes.

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

Delays in attending and transferring emergency patients

Wider context from the report

“That the delay in attending and transferring Mr Nute increased his risk of not recovering from his fall/fracture or the trauma of the incident which in turn increasing his risk of death. ”

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 inform police of road traffic accidents in a timely fashion

Wider context from the report

“That South Western Ambulance did not inform the police of a road traffic accident in a timely fashion resulting in the scene of the incident/patient and late arrival of the ambulance not being managed appropriately. For example the witnesses to the road traffic accident were left waiting a good number of hours for the police to arrive to provide their details to them and there was no one to professionally manage the safety/dignity of Mr Nute who was lying on the highway. ”

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 appropriately triage and manage emergency calls

Wider context from the report

“That the 999 calls from the public were not triaged by the call handlers at BT or South Western Ambulance appropriately and managed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency call handling.

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

Participate in cross-emergency-service forums to discuss and address operational issues, incidents and improvements to collaborative working and communication.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In an attempt to ensure we work to continuously improve our working relationship with other emergency services, including Devon and Cornwall Police, representatives from the Trust attend a number of different meetings which provide a platform for any issues or concerns to be discussed and addressed. These include:”

Source location

2016-0229-Response-by-South-Western-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 24 June 2016

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

Participate as a trial site in the Ambulance Response Programme’s new call-coding system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ARP has now developed a new call coding set which has been trialling in two sites - South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust and Yorkshire Ambulance Service for a minimum of 12 weeks since April 2016.”

Source location

2016-0229-Response-by-South-Western-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 24 June 2016

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 original emergency call was triaged correctly, achieving 97% compliance against the applicable 86% pass rate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of the question as to whether the call received was triaged appropriately, I can confirm that ████████ investigation confirmed that the disposition reached for the original call was indeed correct. An audit of this call was undertaken as part of the investigation, which confirmed the call achieved 97% compliance against a pass rate of 86%. That said, it is acknowledged that the police were not notified of the incident until 12.56, an hour after the original call had been received. I am aware that concerns were raised during the inquest that the delay in notifying the police could have led to the driver of the vehicle leaving the scene and furthermore, placed a responsibility on those members of public on scene to effectively shield Mr Nute from passing traffic.”

Source location

2016-0229-Response-by-South-Western-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 June 2016

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 journey to hospital was delayed by only 15 minutes because the crew took the quickest ordinarily available route despite vehicle difficulties.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of the concerns received regarding a delay in conveying Mr Nute to hospital, a review of our systems has confirmed that the crew left scene at 14.55 and arrived at the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust at 16.14, with a journey time of 1 hour and 20 minutes. I understand the crew encountered a couple of difficulties with the vehicle on the way to hospital which meant they had to stop on a couple of occasions for a few minutes. I am advised, however that the crew took the quickest route to the hospital which would ordinarily take 1 hour 5 minutes. This meant there was a delay to hospital but only by 15 minutes.”

Source location

2016-0229-Response-by-South-Western-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 June 2016

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

Immediate conveyance was unavailable because all suitable ambulance resources were committed to higher-priority, time-critical patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After conducting an initial assessment of the patient, the ECP made a request for priority 2 back-up at 12.40, after being on scene for 4 minutes. Regrettably, a DCA was not immediately available, as all resources were committed. The next available conveying resource was therefore allocated at 13.12 and arrived on scene at 13.44.”

Source location

2016-0229-Response-by-South-Western-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 June 2016

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026