PFD report

Chloe Elizabeth Burgess · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Mar 2025•Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
1

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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure of prescribing software to trigger alerts for the interaction between amitriptyline, paroxetine and ivabradine
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical safety-alert systems
  2. Lack of prescriber understanding of the interaction between ivabradine, amitriptyline and paroxetine
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
Responses linked to these concerns

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

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

  1. Position

    Prescribers are responsible for understanding medicine interactions and applying appropriate caution or monitoring rather than relying solely on software alerts.

    Stated by Royal College of PhysiciansRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 prescribing software to trigger alerts for the interaction between amitriptyline, paroxetine and ivabradine

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that the potential dangers of the combination of amitriptyline, paroxetine and ivabradine is not widely appreciated and does not trigger an alert on the prescribing software used in primary care or by pharmacists. The potential dangers related to a failure to metabolise amitriptyline which can, incrementally, lead to toxicity. I am also concerned that those prescribing ivabradine should have a full understanding of the potential interaction with amitriptyline and paroxetine. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical safety-alert 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

Lack of prescriber understanding of the interaction between ivabradine, amitriptyline and paroxetine

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that the potential dangers of the combination of amitriptyline, paroxetine and ivabradine is not widely appreciated and does not trigger an alert on the prescribing software used in primary care or by pharmacists. The potential dangers related to a failure to metabolise amitriptyline which can, incrementally, lead to toxicity. I am also concerned that those prescribing ivabradine should have a full understanding of the potential interaction with amitriptyline and paroxetine. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe medication prescribing.

Open source report

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

Prescribers are responsible for understanding medicine interactions and applying appropriate caution or monitoring rather than relying solely on software alerts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is the role of all prescribers to understand the overarching mechanisms of action of medicines they may prescribe, and where similar actions occur by more than one medicine, or might exacerbate pathology in individual patients, particular caution or monitoring should be instituted. It is important that they do not rely on prescribing software, but use recognised reference materials.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Physicians
Page 2 · response
Published 7 March 2025

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

Prescribing software alerts are determined by independent commercial providers, which choose the reference materials informing alert content.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, as joint publishers of the BNF, have advised that pharmacokinetic (drug metabolism) interactions are included within the BNF, but that all theoretical compound effects of combinations of medications through their mode of action cannot be included. Furthermore, prescribing software for primary care and pharmacies is provided by independent commercial organisations, who will choose which reference materials they use to inform alerts. This software and its application is currently not regulated.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Physicians
Page 2 · response
Published 7 March 2025

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

BNF publishers, rather than NICE, are best placed to address concerns about drug interactions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have reflected on the circumstances surrounding Chloe’s death, and the concerns raised in your report regarding drug interactions. The British National Formulary (BNF) provides key information on the selection, prescribing, dispensing and administration of medicines and we believe that they would be best placed to address your concerns.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 1 · response
Published 7 March 2025

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

NICE cannot comment on drug-interaction concerns because BNF content responsibility remains with its publishers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The BNF is a joint publication of the BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press, the publishing division of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. While we make the BNF available on the NICE website, responsibility for the content remains with the publishers and therefore NICE cannot comment on the concerns you have raised.”

Source location

Response from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Page 1 · response
Published 7 March 2025

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

    Discuss the case at the Patient Safety Committee and Joint Medicines Safety Working Group to determine whether further action is needed.

    Stated by Royal College of PhysiciansStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 March 2025.

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 the case at the Patient Safety Committee and Joint Medicines Safety Working Group to determine whether further action is needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Royal College of Physicians works closely with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the British Pharmacological Society and NHS England Chief Pharmacists. We will discuss this case at our next Patient Safety Committee and Joint Medicines Safety Working Group, to explore whether further action should be taken informed by this case.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Physicians
Page 2 · response
Published 7 March 2025

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026