PFD report

Kathryn Verina Richmond · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Nov 2017•Dorset

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
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 to stagger ambulance crew shifts and meal breaks
    Part of recurring concern: Delays in ambulance attendancePart of recurring concern: Insufficient ambulance service capacity for emergency calls
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

    Make the National Directors of Operations Group aware of the concerns and remind it to review rostering arrangements regularly.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 February 2018.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The Association lacks authority to mandate ambulance trusts to change their operating practices.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesOutside 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

Failure to stagger ambulance crew shifts and meal breaks

Wider context from the report

“i. Due to the non-staggering of shift patterns of ambulance crews within Ambulance Service Trusts, there could be increased delays in attending emergency calls due to ambulance staff taking meal breaks at the same time. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in ambulance attendance; Insufficient ambulance service capacity for emergency calls.

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

Make the National Directors of Operations Group aware of the concerns and remind it to review rostering arrangements regularly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“AACE will ensure that the National Directors of Operations Group (NDOG) is made aware of your concerns associated with this tragic incident and remind them of the need to ensure that this is done on a regular basis.”

Source location

2017-0401-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 4 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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 Association lacks authority to mandate ambulance trusts to change their operating practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Firstly, can I be clear that the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) has no power to mandate Ambulance Trusts nationally to make changes to their operating practices which remain a matter for individual trusts and their respective Boards.”

Source location

2017-0401-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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

Existing arrangements require trusts to stagger breaks where possible, review rosters regularly, and provide emergency interruption options.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, I am advised that all ambulance services are aware of the need to stagger meal breaks as much as possible and to regularly review rostering systems to stagger start and finish times and therefore meal breaks. In addition, all ambulance services have arrangements in place to enable clinicians to be interrupted during their breaks in the event of a major incident, and all services have additional arrangements for crews to be disturbed during a break on a voluntary basis to respond to potentially life-threatening calls.”

Source location

2017-0401-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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 Department does not issue specific guidance on ambulance rostering structures or meal-break arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care does not issue specific guidance to ambulance trusts on the structure of their rostering systems or meal break arrangements. Neither does the AACE have the power to mandate ambulance trusts to make changes to their operating practices. Paramedic meal breaks and shift pattern arrangements are operational matters for individual ambulance trusts.”

Source location

2017-0401-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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.2

  1. 1

    Share SWAST’s emergency-call management issues and subsequent changes nationally so other ambulance trusts can review their internal control-room procedures.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  2. 2

    Incorporate lessons and actions from the incident into the national Regulation 28 database and ensure the relevant national groups take on the learning.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 February 2018.

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

  1. 1

    Ambulance rostering and meal-break arrangements are operational matters for individual trusts and their respective Boards.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesRedirects 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

Share SWAST’s emergency-call management issues and subsequent changes nationally so other ambulance trusts can review their internal control-room procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The changes which SWAST have made in the way in which they managed the emergency call may have been specific to SWAST but we will ensure that those issues and the subsequent changes are shared nationally to allow other Trusts to review their procedures internally to satisfy themselves that their internal control room processes are satisfactory.”

Source location

2017-0401-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 4 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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

Incorporate lessons and actions from the incident into the national Regulation 28 database and ensure the relevant national groups take on the learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Turning to your areas of concern we will ensure that the lessons learned and the actions taken by SWAST are incorporated into our national database of Regulation 28 reports and that both groups take on board the learning from the incident.”

Source location

2017-0401-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 4 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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

Ambulance rostering and meal-break arrangements are operational matters for individual trusts and their respective Boards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care does not issue specific guidance to ambulance trusts on the structure of their rostering systems or meal break arrangements. Neither does the AACE have the power to mandate ambulance trusts to make changes to their operating practices. Paramedic meal breaks and shift pattern arrangements are operational matters for individual ambulance trusts.”

Source location

2017-0401-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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