PFD report

William Richard STOCKIL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Jun 2024•West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
9

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 raised1

  1. Failure of the medication-ending alert system to draw attention to prescription review when no prescribing clinician accesses the patient’s record
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical safety-alert systems
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

    Explore with Royal Surrey whether configuration or other changes could facilitate adherence to the clinical workflow, including broadening alert recipients.

    Stated by Oracle Corporation UK LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  2. Action

    Discuss with Royal Surrey establishing an alert-notifications committee to review existing alerts and identify new alerts for development.

    Stated by Oracle Corporation UK LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  3. Action

    Engage Oracle Corporation UK Limited on the electronic prescribing alerting concerns raised in the Report.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 May 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Alerts are appropriately displayed within patient records and cannot substitute for clinicians following established clinical workflows and standards of care.

    Stated by Oracle Corporation UK LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 medication-ending alert system to draw attention to prescription review when no prescribing clinician accesses the patient’s record

Wider context from the report

“The system has been changed since the death of Mr Stockil in that alerts of medication ending are now only sent to clinicians who have the right to prescribe in order that alerts are seen by the correct staff. It is no longer the case that the alerts can be sent to any clinicians who do not have the ability to address prescriptions. The current version of the system generates alerts when anyone with a prescribing right accesses the patient’s records. This means that an alert will only be shown to a prescriber and only if they access the patient’s records. Therefore, it was accepted that there was a risk that the alerting system would not operate to draw attention to the need for prescription review before the medication ceases if no prescribing clinician accesses a patient’s record. This creates a risk that medications will cease when they should be continued and creates a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical safety-alert systems.

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

Explore with Royal Surrey whether configuration or other changes could facilitate adherence to the clinical workflow, including broadening alert recipients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“19. Oracle Health considers that the anti-infective alert notification features are appropriate and functioning as designed. To the extent the Area Coroner’s concern relates to prescribers not accessing the EPR, this is respectfully an issue in the clinical workflow which cannot be addressed through further alert notifications. Nevertheless, Oracle Health will:”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 7 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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 with Royal Surrey establishing an alert-notifications committee to review existing alerts and identify new alerts for development.

Verbatim wording from the response

“19.2. More generally, Oracle will also discuss with RSFT the benefits of: (a) establishing an alert notifications committee as part of its healthcare information technology governance, to review existing alert notifications or identify new alert notifications for development; (b) defining, documenting and regularly reviewing how it works with alert notifications in digital solutions through a published Standard Operating Practice; and (c) working more closely with Oracle Health’s ‘Apps Services’ team for future configuration changes.”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 7 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Engage Oracle Corporation UK Limited on the electronic prescribing alerting concerns raised in the Report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England will be engaging with Oracle Corporation UK Limited on the issues raised. I note that you have also addressed your Report to Oracle Corporation UK Limited, and we have been sighted on their response to you dated 27 June 2024. We note that they state they have not found any defect or fault with their software, and that they are open to exploring with RSFT whether any configuration changes, alterations to working practices and additional training may assist to further mitigate any clinical risks. Any identified learnings could be facilitated through their dedicated User Groups and/or general guidance could also be provided on how to best design”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Consider incorporating a test script addressing the prescribing alerting issue into future ePRaSE iterations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The NHS Digital Medicines Programme commissions a system called the e-Prescribing Risk and Safety Evaluation (ePRaSE), which is a tool that supports NHS Trusts in configuring their Electronic Prescribing and Medicines Administration (ePMA) systems, to mitigate prescribing risks and improve safety. There could be scope to incorporate a test script to explore this issue in future iterations of ePRaSE, and this will be considered by the team.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Alerts are appropriately displayed within patient records and cannot substitute for clinicians following established clinical workflows and standards of care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.4. The alert notification system is not intended to serve as a substitute in place of the clinical protocol to access individual patient EPRs daily and it would be improper for it to do so. To the extent that there is concern about prescribers not accessing their EPR, this is a clinical workflow issue. Ultimately, no amount of alert notifications can address the shortcomings of a prescriber failing to follow a clinical workflow or not observing underlying standards of care.”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 2 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Login-based or external email alerts are considered unworkable because they risk alert fatigue, workflow disruption, lost acknowledgement monitoring and data-security breaches.

Verbatim wording from the response

“15.2. Electronic alert notifications must operate within the confines of the Millennium system and having alert notifications sent externally (e.g., by e-mail) would be less effective and risks unacceptable data security breaches.”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 5 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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 evidence indicates a software defect; Millennium was working as designed and configured, including subsequent independent modifications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. While there is no suggestion that the software at issue was in anyway at fault or contributed to the Deceased’s death, Oracle Health conducted a review as described more fully in this Response and concludes as follows (key findings are highlighted in bold throughout):”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 1 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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 client retains responsibility for deciding whether to adopt code or configuration enhancements, including their clinical and commercial implications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“D. POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENTS TO MEDICATIONS MANAGEMENT AS DEPLOYED AT RSFT”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 6 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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.5

  1. 1

    Discuss with Royal Surrey closer collaboration with the Apps Services team for future configuration changes.

    Stated by Oracle Corporation UK LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  2. 2

    Discuss with Royal Surrey defining, documenting and regularly reviewing alert-notification practices through a published standard operating procedure.

    Stated by Oracle Corporation UK LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  3. 3

    Review the Millennium software deployed at Royal Surrey for defects or safety issues relevant to the report.

    Stated by Oracle Corporation UK LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  4. 4

    Share the Report’s concerns with NHS systems through Regulation 28 Working Group regional representatives.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 May 2024.
  5. 5

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

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 May 2024.

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

  1. 1

    The alerting system has no numerical cap on Anti-Infective Alert Notifications, so alerts cannot be used up.

    Stated by Oracle Corporation UK LimitedDisputes 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 with Royal Surrey closer collaboration with the Apps Services team for future configuration changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“19.2. More generally, Oracle will also discuss with RSFT the benefits of: (a) establishing an alert notifications committee as part of its healthcare information technology governance, to review existing alert notifications or identify new alert notifications for development; (b) defining, documenting and regularly reviewing how it works with alert notifications in digital solutions through a published Standard Operating Practice; and (c) working more closely with Oracle Health’s ‘Apps Services’ team for future configuration changes.”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 7 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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 with Royal Surrey defining, documenting and regularly reviewing alert-notification practices through a published standard operating procedure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“19.2. More generally, Oracle will also discuss with RSFT the benefits of: (a) establishing an alert notifications committee as part of its healthcare information technology governance, to review existing alert notifications or identify new alert notifications for development; (b) defining, documenting and regularly reviewing how it works with alert notifications in digital solutions through a published Standard Operating Practice; and (c) working more closely with Oracle Health’s ‘Apps Services’ team for future configuration changes.”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 7 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Review the Millennium software deployed at Royal Surrey for defects or safety issues relevant to the report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Oracle Health deeply regrets and was saddened to learn of the various medical omissions at the Royal Surrey County Hospital (“Royal Surrey”) (albeit not causative or contributory to the Deceased’s death) and extends its condolences to the family of the Deceased and others bereaved. Oracle Health assures the Deceased’s family that Oracle Health takes the contents of the Report extremely seriously and that in response to it, Oracle Health conducted a thorough and in-depth review of the Millennium software deployed and in operation at Royal Surrey.”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 1 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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

Share the Report’s concerns with NHS systems through Regulation 28 Working Group regional representatives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England will be engaging with Oracle Corporation UK Limited on the issues raised. I note that you have also addressed your Report to Oracle Corporation UK Limited, and we have been sighted on their response to you dated 27 June 2024. We note that they state they have not found any defect or fault with their software, and that they are open to exploring with RSFT whether any configuration changes, alterations to working practices and additional training may assist to further mitigate any clinical risks. Any identified learnings could be facilitated through their dedicated User Groups and/or general guidance could also be provided on how to best design”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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 Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting 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 William, 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 20 May 2024

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 alerting system has no numerical cap on Anti-Infective Alert Notifications, so alerts cannot be used up.

Verbatim wording from the response

“14. The Report suggests that there were a “pre-agreed number of alerts” and that “alerts can be used up”. By way of clarification, there is no numerical cap on the number of Anti-Infective Alert Notifications that can be sent within the default configuration parameters, and no such cap was introduced by RSFT during the D&C Workshops process.”

Source location

Response from Oracle
Page 5 · response
Published 20 May 2024

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026