PFD report

Joseph Andrew Price · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Jan 2023•County Durham and Darlington

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
2

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 raised2

  1. Failure to ask about family history of sudden cardiac death during reception health screening
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate prison reception safeguardsPart of recurring concern: Incomplete clinical history-taking
  2. Failure to record and clearly flag family history of sudden cardiac death in SystmOne
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable operation of SystmOne for safety-critical prisoner information
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

    Refresh the secondary health screening template to add a specific prompt about family history of sudden cardiac death.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 January 2023.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    No specific read code for sudden death syndrome is provided because there is no evidence supporting screening for the condition.

    Stated by NHS EnglandUnable 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 ask about family history of sudden cardiac death during reception health screening

Wider context from the report

“The best, in some cases the only, way to predict a pre-disposition to a death of this nature is by reference to family medical history of such, or similar, occurrences. Once this is known, the person can then be referred for genetic screening. Sadly, in Andrew`s case no one in healthcare, some of whom had been familiar with him for years from previous terms of imprisonment, had any knowledge of the family history, as it did not feature on system one, and Andrew had never volunteered it. Equally, he had never been asked about it. This is not a criticism, simply a statement of fact made starkly relevant by the circumstances, unusual though they are. The head of healthcare at HMP Durham gave evidence, when asked directly by me, that provision for a question in the reception health screen template about any family history of sudden cardiac death could help to prevent deaths of this kind recurring at the prison. She, with the health care provider for HMP Durham (Spectrum Community Health), has helpfully and very pro-actively put this into immediate effect locally (at HMP Durham and those other prisons covered by the health care provider). Specifically, the second health screen template (see attached - at pages 7 and 8) now shows that a question with regards family history (FH) of a ‘FH: Cardiac Disorder (incl. Sudden Cardiac Death)’ has been added to the second reception screen. The updating of the first reception health screen template is currently in hand. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate prison reception safeguards; Incomplete clinical history-taking.

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 record and clearly flag family history of sudden cardiac death in SystmOne

Wider context from the report

“Additionally, the health care provider proposed the introduction of a read code specifically for ‘FH: Sudden Cardiac Death’ in the SystmOne template. This read code does not currently exist in SystmOne and so locally, the health care provider has now added it as a prompt in the read code for ‘FH: Cardiac Disorder (XM1JV)’ and add to this (‘incl. Sudden Cardiac Death’). By adding ‘FH: Sudden Cardiac Death’ as a read code in its own right, it will make it easier to search for and flag on the SystmOne records of prisoners so staff can clearly see and be aware of this previous family history. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable operation of SystmOne for safety-critical prisoner 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

Refresh the secondary health screening template to add a specific prompt about family history of sudden cardiac death.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to your concern raised over a lack of appropriate read code for sudden cardiac death, there is no specific read code for sudden death syndrome on any clinical system, which is likely due to the fact there is no evidence to screen for it. NHS England is however refreshing the secondary health screening template to include a specific prompt for users to ask relevant questions relating to family history.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 24 January 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

No specific read code for sudden death syndrome is provided because there is no evidence supporting screening for the condition.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to your concern raised over a lack of appropriate read code for sudden cardiac death, there is no specific read code for sudden death syndrome on any clinical system, which is likely due to the fact there is no evidence to screen for it. NHS England is however refreshing the secondary health screening template to include a specific prompt for users to ask relevant questions relating to family history.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 24 January 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.1

  1. 1

    Discuss all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning nationally and regionally.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 January 2023.

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

  1. 1

    Screening for sudden cardiac death is not recommended for people aged 12–39 because evidence does not show it reduces sudden cardiac death risk.

    Stated by NHS EnglandDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning nationally and regionally.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would 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 Andrew 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 24 January 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

Screening for sudden cardiac death is not recommended for people aged 12–39 because evidence does not show it reduces sudden cardiac death risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It should be noted that the UK National Screening committee does not recommend that screening is undertaken for younger individuals, namely those aged 12-39 years, as there is not enough evidence to support the screening. This is because:”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 24 January 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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026