John Charles Spencer · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 May 2025•East Riding and Hull

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
4

Named on the report

Responses found
4

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
9

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 raised1

  1. Failure of GP out-of-hours surgeries to access key GP medical history information after patient consent
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably transfer medical records between healthcare organisationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable consolidation and access to patients’ cross-service clinical risk information

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.9

  1. NHS England

    Support greater integration and awareness of record sharing between in-hours and out-of-hours providers.

  2. NHS England

    Work with the Shared Care Records Programme to support wider access to relevant patient information.

  3. NHS England

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

  4. Care Quality Commission

    Inspect the out-of-hours service in line with current inspection priorities.

  5. Care Quality Commission

    Continue monitoring the out-of-hours service.

  6. Care Quality Commission

    Scrutinise providers’ handling of correspondence, clinical coding, information sharing, patient pathways and significant-event learning during inspection and monitoring activity.

  7. Holderness Health

    Migrate clinical IT from EMIS to TPP SystmOne and enable GP Connect to support consent-based access to medical summaries.

  8. Royal College of General Practitioners

    Highlight the case to the Health Informatics Group for use in future discussions with NHS England.

  9. Royal College of General Practitioners

    Highlight the concerns to the Professional Record Standards Body regarding interoperability.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. NHS England

    Integrated Care Boards are responsible for commissioning, implementing and integrating in-hours and out-of-hours primary care solutions.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. Care Quality Commission

    Decisions about providers’ computer systems and IT infrastructure are a commissioning matter, not under CQC’s direct control.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. Care Quality Commission

    Dictating providers’ computer systems and IT infrastructure is outside CQC’s role and remit.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  4. Holderness Health

    The remote surgery was not a significant or currently active problem and therefore would not generally appear in GP Connect’s limited summary.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  5. Royal College of General Practitioners

    Making all GP IT systems identical is not possible because government policy promotes plurality among GP IT providers.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  6. Royal College of General Practitioners

    NHS England owns the interoperability strategy and GP Connect, so responsibility for this work lies with NHS England.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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 of GP out-of-hours surgeries to access key GP medical history information after patient consent

Wider context from the report

“(1) The GP medical history summary, populated by the GP that a patient is registered to, is not always accessible to a GP out of hours surgery. Evidence was given that there are various reasons for this, including the patient not providing consent for the exchange of this information. However, on some occasions, even when a patient has consented, the patient record systems utilised by the GP registered practice and the GP out of hours surgery, insofar as being different computer systems or for whatever other technological reason, prevented the exchange of information into the GP out of hours surgery. In this case, evidence was heard that the GP practice was using the EMIS system and that the urgent treatment centre (GP out of hours surgery) was using SystmOne. That fact caused the GP out of hours surgery to not be able to access Mr Spencer’s GP medical summary. This situation generates a concern that, providing the patient has consented, key medical information may not be conveyed to the GP out of hours surgery which should be accessible to allow the appropriate exchange of medical information to inform what examinations should take place in an out of hours setting. This concern is particularly significant in circumstances where the patient does not say and/or present with the points in the medical history relevant to the GPs determination about what further examinations should occur flowing from the medical history of the patient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services; Failure to reliably transfer medical records between healthcare organisations; Unreliable consolidation and access to patients’ cross-service clinical risk information.

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

Support greater integration and awareness of record sharing between in-hours and out-of-hours providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England is aware of the challenge in sharing medical records between providers during the in-hours and out-of-hours period and the variability between areas using different technologies. We are also aware that use of the NCRS is variable across different care settings.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Work with the Shared Care Records Programme to support wider access to relevant patient information.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are therefore working across the health system to support greater integration and awareness of record sharing between in-hours and OOH providers. We are also working with the ShCR Programme to support wider access to relevant patient information.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

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

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the 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 events, such as the sad death of John, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Inspect the out-of-hours service in line with current inspection priorities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have not yet inspected the out of hours service provided by City Health Care Partnership as they only registered with CQC under this provider in December 2024. At present we have no known concerns about this service which will be inspected in line with our current inspection priorities. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor the service.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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 monitoring the out-of-hours service.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have not yet inspected the out of hours service provided by City Health Care Partnership as they only registered with CQC under this provider in December 2024. At present we have no known concerns about this service which will be inspected in line with our current inspection priorities. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor the service.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Scrutinise providers’ handling of correspondence, clinical coding, information sharing, patient pathways and significant-event learning during inspection and monitoring activity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As CQC is aware that computer systems across healthcare providers are often unable to communicate with each other we have taken steps to mitigate this issue. For example, we ensure that we look closely at how providers deal with incoming correspondence (e.g. letters from secondary care or other health and social care providers), coding, sharing of information with other healthcare providers and patient pathways during our inspection and monitoring activity. We also look closely at how they identify, record and learn from significant events such as this one and were satisfied with the significant event analysis undertaken by City Health Care Partnership in relation to this matter.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Migrate clinical IT from EMIS to TPP SystmOne and enable GP Connect to support consent-based access to medical summaries.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Relating to the matters of concern raised in your report, I can confirm that Holderness Health had a planned clinical IT system migration from EMIS to TPP SystmOne on 13th May 2024, with GP Connect enabled.”

Source location

Response from Holderness Health
Page 1 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Highlight the case to the Health Informatics Group for use in future discussions with NHS England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a College our action shall be to highlight this tragic case to our health informatics group so they can use it in future discussions with NHS England. It is important that the area of Health informatics is not lost with the reorganisation of NHS and that the government both prioritise and progress action in this work. We shall also highlight your concerns to The Professional Record Standards Body (PRSB) who are dedicated to the development and implementation of health and care information standards and for whom this area on interoperability is relevant.”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Highlight the concerns to the Professional Record Standards Body regarding interoperability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a College our action shall be to highlight this tragic case to our health informatics group so they can use it in future discussions with NHS England. It is important that the area of Health informatics is not lost with the reorganisation of NHS and that the government both prioritise and progress action in this work. We shall also highlight your concerns to The Professional Record Standards Body (PRSB) who are dedicated to the development and implementation of health and care information standards and for whom this area on interoperability is relevant.”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Integrated Care Boards are responsible for commissioning, implementing and integrating in-hours and out-of-hours primary care solutions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At present, Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) are responsible for commissioning, implementation and integration of in-hours and out-of-hours primary care solutions.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Decisions about providers’ computer systems and IT infrastructure are a commissioning matter, not under CQC’s direct control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is not within the CQC’s role or remit to dictate the computer systems that providers operate or the IT infrastructure in use as this is a commissioning matter and not something we have any direct control over.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Dictating providers’ computer systems and IT infrastructure is outside CQC’s role and remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is not within the CQC’s role or remit to dictate the computer systems that providers operate or the IT infrastructure in use as this is a commissioning matter and not something we have any direct control over.”

Source location

Response from Care Quality Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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 remote surgery was not a significant or currently active problem and therefore would not generally appear in GP Connect’s limited summary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Relating to the matters of concern raised in your report, I can confirm that Holderness Health had a planned clinical IT system migration from EMIS to TPP SystmOne on 13th May 2024, with GP Connect enabled.”

Source location

Response from Holderness Health
Page 1 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

Making all GP IT systems identical is not possible because government policy promotes plurality among GP IT providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The innovation in General Practice IT systems has been led partly by a government strategy to create a Plurality of GP IT Providers by increasing the diversity in the marketplace through NHS frameworks like the GP IT Futures Framework and more recently the Tech Innovation Framework. The new Tech Innovation framework has even brought in a new provider into the marketplace in the last few weeks called Medicus Health. It is therefore not possible for all GP IT systems across both the in and out of hours period to be the same. Recognising that there would be patient benefit to other areas of the health system such as the Hospital Emergency Departments for access to the GP Summary work has been carried out to provide interoperability.”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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

NHS England owns the interoperability strategy and GP Connect, so responsibility for this work lies with NHS England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This work currently falls under NHS England who own the dedicated Interoperability strategy as well as GP Connect which is a new national service which enables healthcare staff to view GP patient records significantly improving data sharing between General Practice and other parts of the NHS. It is recognised that as technology progresses the sharing of records improves but within a robust information governance structure and data sharing agreements.”

Source location

Response from RCGP
Page 2 · response
Published 21 May 2025

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
4/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026