PFD report

Dennis Peter Stark · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Oct 2015•Blackpool and the Fylde

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
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 suitable means for safely removing people requiring urgent medical attention from second-floor accommodation
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency evacuation arrangements for people requiring assisted removal
  2. Insufficient assessment of residents’ size and emergency medical removal needs when allocating accommodation
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to assess room suitability and safety before placement
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 suitable means for safely removing people requiring urgent medical attention from second-floor accommodation

Wider context from the report

“1. During the course of the Inquest I heard evidence from a Paramedic Reynolds who had been called to Regency House (now Newton House) which is a rehabilitation unit that cares for individuals with mental health issues, Mr Stark having previously been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. He was an obese gentleman who weighed in excess of 30 stones, and he had been found unresponsive in his room. He was residing in a second floor room at the premises. The premises have no lift. The Paramedic indicated that after her arrival, there followed a period of time during which Mr Stark had no pulse and required Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation. However, once a pulse was noted it then took the ambulance crew approximately twenty-two minutes to leave the scene. She clearly felt that the time it took the crew to leave the premises was contributed to by the absence of a lift in the premises and to the extent that she felt at least half of the amount of time it took to leave the scene could have been avoided had a lift been in place. In reality Mr Stark had to be transported with some difficulty from his room, down some steps, and out to the ambulance and then taken to hospital. It could not be established from the evidence whether that increased amount of time contributed to Mr Stark’s eventual demise but I am concerned that a risk of future deaths may arise should someone requiring urgent medical attention be accommodated on the second floor of Newton House whose physical status is such that safe removal of that person from the building may be compromised and leave paramedics in similar difficulties. Although evidence was provided by the Nursing staff that when this gentleman was mobile he was able to use steps at the premises to get around, it appeared to me that there had been insufficient thought given to the prospect of him requiring urgent medical attention and whether his size may hinder his removal, particularly in the event of an emergency. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency evacuation arrangements for people requiring assisted removal.

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

Insufficient assessment of residents’ size and emergency medical removal needs when allocating accommodation

Wider context from the report

“1. During the course of the Inquest I heard evidence from a Paramedic Reynolds who had been called to Regency House (now Newton House) which is a rehabilitation unit that cares for individuals with mental health issues, Mr Stark having previously been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. He was an obese gentleman who weighed in excess of 30 stones, and he had been found unresponsive in his room. He was residing in a second floor room at the premises. The premises have no lift. The Paramedic indicated that after her arrival, there followed a period of time during which Mr Stark had no pulse and required Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation. However, once a pulse was noted it then took the ambulance crew approximately twenty-two minutes to leave the scene. She clearly felt that the time it took the crew to leave the premises was contributed to by the absence of a lift in the premises and to the extent that she felt at least half of the amount of time it took to leave the scene could have been avoided had a lift been in place. In reality Mr Stark had to be transported with some difficulty from his room, down some steps, and out to the ambulance and then taken to hospital. It could not be established from the evidence whether that increased amount of time contributed to Mr Stark’s eventual demise but I am concerned that a risk of future deaths may arise should someone requiring urgent medical attention be accommodated on the second floor of Newton House whose physical status is such that safe removal of that person from the building may be compromised and leave paramedics in similar difficulties. Although evidence was provided by the Nursing staff that when this gentleman was mobile he was able to use steps at the premises to get around, it appeared to me that there had been insufficient thought given to the prospect of him requiring urgent medical attention and whether his size may hinder his removal, particularly in the event of an emergency. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to assess room suitability and safety before placement.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.