PFD report

Helen Jayne SHEATH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Jan 2020•Bedfordshire and Luton

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised3

  1. Failure to code uncertain self-harm ingestion calls as Category 2
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triagePart of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
  2. Failure to code uncertain self-harm ingestion calls as Category 2
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triagePart of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
  3. Failure to maintain timely availability of a double staffed ambulance
    Part of recurring concern: Delays in ambulance attendancePart of recurring concern: Insufficient ambulance service capacity for emergency calls
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.1

  1. Action

    Encourage ambulance trusts to implement early clinical review of calls involving patients threatening suicide.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 June 2020.

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

  1. Position

    Mandating or instructing ambulance services is outside the organisation’s constitution and authority.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 code uncertain self-harm ingestion calls as Category 2

Wider context from the report

“(1) Helen’s father first called ambulance services at 18.20 hours on 2018 which was before he had ingested the sodium nitrate. EAS’s investigation report stated that “from the information provided on this call, that Helen had locked herself in the bathroom and was threatening to self-harm by ingesting a substance, the call handler selected the set of questions titled “Psychiatric/Abnormal Behaviour/Suicide Attempt” and the call was coded as a Category 3. This call has been audited by the Quality Assurance Team and was correctly coded and the correct set of questions used” …yet a Category 3 call is for patients who have potentially urgent conditions that are not life threatening and yet Helen had a history of suicide ideation and her father was unable to tell, being the other side of the locked door, whether the substance had been taken or not. In view of both Helen’s past medical history and the fact that her father had no knowledge as to whether the substance had been ingested or not at that stage, it seemed to the Court that an assumption that an overdose had been taken ought to have been made and this first call, therefore, coded as a Category 2; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage; Unsafe emergency call handling.

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 code uncertain self-harm ingestion calls as Category 2

Wider context from the report

“(3) If the first call had been coded as a Category 2, it seems likely that the RRV, Mental Health Street Triage Team (and even possibly the original DSA) would have arrived on scene much earlier (potentially just before or just after Helen had ingested the sodium nitrate) which could potentially have altered the outcome. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage; Unsafe emergency call handling.

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 maintain timely availability of a double staffed ambulance

Wider context from the report

“(2) Although a Double Staffed Ambulance (DSA) was dispatched at 18.30 hours, it was diverted on route to a higher priority emergency call and it was only after a second call was made to ambulance services at 18.48 hours, when the call handler selected the set of questions titled “Overdose/Poisoning/Ingestion” because it was said that it was suggested on this call that she had ingested the substance that the call was coded a Category 2 and that, due to the lack of DSA availability, at 18.57 hours a Rapid Response Vehicle (RRV) was dispatched with the Mental Health Street Triage Team who arrived at 19.05 and 19.11 hours respectively with a different DSA arriving at 19.25 hours. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in ambulance attendance; Insufficient ambulance service capacity for emergency calls.

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

Encourage ambulance trusts to implement early clinical review of calls involving patients threatening suicide.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A person that is threatening suicide does not constitute a life-threatening emergency and therefore doesn’t warrant a higher category of response but, given the potential for a small number of these cases to become potentially life threatening, early clinical review of these calls is recommended. NASMeD has previously encouraged all ambulance trusts to implement clinical review of these cases in support of the letter sent by Professor ████████ in April 2019.”

Source location

2020-0107-Response-from-Association-of-Chief-Executives_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 8 June 2020

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

Mandating or instructing ambulance services is outside the organisation’s constitution and authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“AACE is a private company owned by the English Ambulance NHS Trusts. It exists to provide ambulance services with a central organisation that supports, coordinates and implements nationally agreed policy. Our primary focus is the ongoing development of the English ambulance services and the improvement of patient care. We are a company owned by NHS organisations and possess the intellectual property rights of the JRCALC UK ambulance service clinical practice guidelines. AACE is not constituted to mandate or instruct ambulance service however we do have national influence via the regular meetings of ambulance Chief Executives and Trust Chairs along with a network of national specialist sub-groups. One of our specialist sub groups is the National Ambulance Service Medical Directors (NASMeD) and this response therefore is from AACE and has been informed by NASMeD.”

Source location

2020-0107-Response-from-Association-of-Chief-Executives_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 8 June 2020

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

ECPAG, an NHS England-led group, is responsible for approving changes to clinical code sets and response categories.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The response categories are set by the Emergency Call Prioritisation Advisory Group (ECPAG), an NHS England led group responsible for the governance, control and approval of any change to clinical code sets (aligning codes to response categories).”

Source location

2020-0107-Response-from-Association-of-Chief-Executives_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 8 June 2020

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

  1. 1

    Threats of suicide alone are not considered life-threatening emergencies warranting a higher response category.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Threats of suicide alone are not considered life-threatening emergencies warranting a higher response category.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A person that is threatening suicide does not constitute a life-threatening emergency and therefore doesn’t warrant a higher category of response but, given the potential for a small number of these cases to become potentially life threatening, early clinical review of these calls is recommended. NASMeD has previously encouraged all ambulance trusts to implement clinical review of these cases in support of the letter sent by Professor ████████ in April 2019.”

Source location

2020-0107-Response-from-Association-of-Chief-Executives_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 8 June 2020

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026