PFD report

Daniel Charles FORREST · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Jun 2026•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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
4

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. Inability to provide callers with estimated ambulance attendance times
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of ambulance dispatch status and expectations
  2. Failure to inform callers when no ambulance is being arranged
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of ambulance dispatch status and expectationsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
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

    Work with ambulance services to develop standard scripts for situations where Ambulance Response Programme standards will not be met.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2026.

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

  1. Position

    Operational information, including ambulance waiting times, falls outside the remit of NHS Pathways triage.

    Stated by NHS EnglandOutside 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

Inability to provide callers with estimated ambulance attendance times

Wider context from the report

“I heard that the NHS Pathways system tells call handlers to advise callers that an ambulance is being arranged. However I heard that within SECAMB category 3 and category 4 dispositions are validated by clinical staff before being added to the Dispatch queue for an Ambulance to be allocated. I heard that this was in line with National Guidance from The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives. Therefore, callers are not informed that no ambulance is being arranged at the time of their call. I also heard that the NHS Pathways does not allow callers to be advised of the estimated time that they may have to wait for ambulance attendance. The evidence was that SECAMB have requested that the wordings provided by NHS Pathways be altered so that there is provision to give further information to callers about how long they may wait for an ambulance to attend but this has previously been declined by NHS England. I consider that both of the above matters mean that patients cannot make informed decisions about whether they wait for the arrival of an ambulance or escalate worsening symptoms on the basis that they anticipate that an ambulance is being arranged so will be with them shortly when this may not be the case. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of ambulance dispatch status and expectations.

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 inform callers when no ambulance is being arranged

Wider context from the report

“I heard that the NHS Pathways system tells call handlers to advise callers that an ambulance is being arranged. However I heard that within SECAMB category 3 and category 4 dispositions are validated by clinical staff before being added to the Dispatch queue for an Ambulance to be allocated. I heard that this was in line with National Guidance from The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives. Therefore, callers are not informed that no ambulance is being arranged at the time of their call. I also heard that the NHS Pathways does not allow callers to be advised of the estimated time that they may have to wait for ambulance attendance. The evidence was that SECAMB have requested that the wordings provided by NHS Pathways be altered so that there is provision to give further information to callers about how long they may wait for an ambulance to attend but this has previously been declined by NHS England. I consider that both of the above matters mean that patients cannot make informed decisions about whether they wait for the arrival of an ambulance or escalate worsening symptoms on the basis that they anticipate that an ambulance is being arranged so will be with them shortly when this may not be the case. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of ambulance dispatch status and expectations; Unsafe emergency call handling.

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

Work with ambulance services to develop standard scripts for situations where Ambulance Response Programme standards will not be met.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For 999 calls, all ambulance services should have in place call exit scripts and procedures for dealing with response delays when under operational pressure. NHS England has Resource Escalation Action Plan (REAP) levels which are used to manage operational pressures across ambulance services. NHS England supports a position that callers should be provided with sufficient information to make informed decisions, including whether an ambulance has been dispatched to the patient.”

Source location

Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 2026

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

Operational information, including ambulance waiting times, falls outside the remit of NHS Pathways triage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For the reasons provided above, operation information, such as wait times within emergency operations centres sits outside the remit of triage and is best placed to be dealt with locally by individual Ambulance Trusts.”

Source location

Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 2026

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

Individual ambulance services are responsible for managing operational delays and associated caller information under local governance and procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Therefore, these circumstances are now managed locally, by the individual ambulance services, following their own internal governance and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).”

Source location

Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 2026

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.3

  1. 1

    Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share their 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 14 August 2026.
  2. 2

    Advise ambulance services that clinically validated callers should be warned about possible clinician callbacks, further assessment and the need to keep their phone line free.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2026.
  3. 3

    Coordinate ongoing alignment of clinical ambulance response scenarios across triage systems with ambulance-sector partners.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2026.

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

  1. 1

    The ambulance trust’s Computer Aided Dispatch system, rather than NHS Pathways, manages clinical validation of eligible ambulance dispatch categories.

    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 received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share their 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 Mr Forrest, 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 & NHS Improvement
Page 4 · response
Published 14 August 2026

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

Advise ambulance services that clinically validated callers should be warned about possible clinician callbacks, further assessment and the need to keep their phone line free.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As above the National Ambulance team have advised that for incidents that are eligible for clinical validation, patients should be advised that they may receive a call back”

Source location

Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 2026

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

Coordinate ongoing alignment of clinical ambulance response scenarios across triage systems with ambulance-sector partners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2017 NHS England undertook a review of the categorisation of ambulance responses. This programme of work was known as the Ambulance Response Programme (ARP). Further information about this can be found here NHS England » Ambulance Response Programme. As part of this, and ongoing since, activities are managed by NHS England’s National Ambulance Team to ensure the alignment of clinical scenarios between the triage systems in use in the sector. These activities are undertaken in partnership with the Ambulance sector.”

Source location

Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2026

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 ambulance trust’s Computer Aided Dispatch system, rather than NHS Pathways, manages clinical validation of eligible ambulance dispatch categories.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following review of a case, and categorisation to an ambulance dispatch category, the case is transferred to the ambulance service. The information captured in NHS Pathways may allow a clinician to reassess and re-categorise the call, depending on the clinical context. This can happen either without direct contact with the patient or following further contact. The Ambulance Trust’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, rather than NHS Pathways, is used to manage the validation process. So, for incidents that are eligible for clinical validation, any delivered call exit script should outline that patients may receive a call back from a clinician to conduct a further assessment and who may guide them towards an alternative pathway of care, and patients will be asked to keep their phone line free.”

Source location

Response from NHS England & NHS Improvement
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 2026

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