PFD report

Mrs. Susan Longden · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Dec 2018•Avon

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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. Lack of NHS Pathways questions about recent surgical or interventional procedures for patients reporting severe abdominal pain
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable NHS 111 clinical triage algorithms and systems
  2. Failure to obtain triage information directly from the patient or record why the patient cannot speak
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

    Review abdominal pain pathways with Royal College subject-matter experts, including whether to add recent-procedure questions to the severe-pain section.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 May 2019.

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

  1. Position

    Training materials, competency assessments and mandatory audits are considered sufficient to require speaking directly with patients where safe and appropriate.

    Stated by NHS EnglandExisting 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

Lack of NHS Pathways questions about recent surgical or interventional procedures for patients reporting severe abdominal pain

Wider context from the report

“(1) The NHS Pathways algorithm does not include a question with regard to recent surgical or interventional procedures where a patient is reporting severe abdominal pain. The close association in time between such a procedure and the onset of symptoms may well be significant in ensuring prompt action is taken to investigate the cause of the symptoms. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable NHS 111 clinical triage algorithms and systems.

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 obtain triage information directly from the patient or record why the patient cannot speak

Wider context from the report

“(2) Where the caller to NHS 111 is not the patient then the Health Advisor continues to follow the algorithm by obtaining information from the caller and not the patient. There should be greater emphasis on trying to speak with the patient and the information provided reason(s) why the patient cannot came to the telephone. The information provided by the patient themselves and the manner in which that information is provided may well affect the outcome of the triage process. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Review abdominal pain pathways with Royal College subject-matter experts, including whether to add recent-procedure questions to the severe-pain section.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS Pathways regularly review the algorithms and our abdominal pain pathways are currently undergoing a review with our external subject matter experts from the Royal Colleges. This review will include the severe pain section specifically, and inclusion of a question asking about a recent surgical procedure or intervention has specifically been requested for review as part of this work. I can further reassure HM Coroner that this comprehensive review of our abdominal pain algorithms will be concluded by 1st May 2019, and that any changes to NHS Pathways will be implemented later this year, pending successful safety testing.”

Source location

2018-0394-Response-by-NHS-Digital
Page 3 · response
Published 17 May 2019

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

Training materials, competency assessments and mandatory audits are considered sufficient to require speaking directly with patients where safe and appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We therefore consider that the NHS Pathways training materials and licence requirements sufficiently address the need and importance of call handlers speaking directly to patients and recognise that 111 and 999 providers should continue to reinforce this with the call handlers.”

Source location

2018-0394-Response-by-NHS-Digital
Page 4 · response
Published 17 May 2019

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

For severe abdominal pain, urgent primary-care referral and symptom-based questions are considered sufficient without asking about recent procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledge that we do not specifically include a question about recent procedures within the sub-section of the abdominal pain algorithm where callers describe severe pain. This is because, at present, any patient describing severe pain will, as a minimal response, be referred to primary care urgently regardless of such background. Before this backstop is reached, other questions are asked, looking to identify key symptoms that warrant prompt action to investigate their cause, including ambulance dispatch.”

Source location

2018-0394-Response-by-NHS-Digital
Page 3 · response
Published 17 May 2019

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

    Add questions identifying critical illness symptoms to NHS Pathways algorithms, including abdominal pain pathways.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 May 2019.

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

  1. 1

    The local service, not NHS Pathways, made the decision to downgrade the emergency ambulance dispatch to a primary-care callback.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Add questions identifying critical illness symptoms to NHS Pathways algorithms, including abdominal pain pathways.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of the call to 111, Care UK was using release 14.0.2 of NHS Pathways. Since then, questions to better identify critical illness symptoms have been added into many pathways (including abdominal pain). On reviewing the call made in this case against our new algorithms, please be reassured that a caller with similar symptoms would still receive the same emergency ambulance disposition from NHS Pathways.”

Source location

2018-0394-Response-by-NHS-Digital
Page 3 · response
Published 17 May 2019

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 local service, not NHS Pathways, made the decision to downgrade the emergency ambulance dispatch to a primary-care callback.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the case of Mrs. Longden, the NHS Pathways algorithm recommended an emergency (Category 3) ambulance. Pursuant to a local service process the call was then passed to a clinician to validate dispatch of an ambulance, and the ambulance was downgraded to ‘contact primary care within 2 hours’. This step and decision are not a part of NHS Pathways procedures.”

Source location

2018-0394-Response-by-NHS-Digital
Page 3 · response
Published 17 May 2019

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026