PFD report

Terence Norbert Dooley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Apr 2014•Manchester City

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised4

  1. Delays in responding to emergency calls
  2. Failure to communicate emergency response dispatch expectations
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of ambulance dispatch status and expectations
  3. Failure to assign an appropriately urgent code to a potentially fatal tablet ingestion
    Part 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

    Implement Emergency Operations Centre Procedure 0006 to reallocate resources from lower-priority to higher-priority incidents during periods of high demand.

    Stated by North West Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 April 2014.

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

  1. Position

    The Green 2 code assigned to the overdose call was correct because no immediately life-threatening symptoms were reported.

    Stated by North West Ambulance Service NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Delays in responding to emergency calls

Wider context from the report

“2. This was an emergency and a delay of 2 hours and 38 minutes is totally unacceptable regardless of pressures on the service due to Halloween. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 communicate emergency response dispatch expectations

Wider context from the report

“3. There appears to have been a lack of communication. The call handler believed that a response vehicle would be dispatched in 20 minutes. ”

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 assign an appropriately urgent code to a potentially fatal tablet ingestion

Wider context from the report

“1. Despite the fact that each different tablet could be fatal on its own, let alone together, this call was given a code green. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency call handling.

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

Computer-generated emergency codes failing to accurately convey urgency

Wider context from the report

“4. The computer generated codes are misleading. One dash is one too many when it should have, and could have been avoided. ”

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

Implement Emergency Operations Centre Procedure 0006 to reallocate resources from lower-priority to higher-priority incidents during periods of high demand.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NWAS has a finite number of vehicles available at any one time and are aware that demand for vehicles fluctuates. We are acutely aware of the importance of delivering safe patient care, are constantly striving to improve our procedures and have a number of contingency plans which can be implemented during busy periods. One such procedure is Emergency Operations Centre Procedure ECO006 (0006), which is designed to optimise patient care during periods of high demand. In these instances, a resource responding to a lower priority call may require standing down to attend an incident with a higher priority, for example:”

Source location

2014-0162-Response-by-North-West-Ambulance-Service
Page 2 · response
Published 10 April 2014

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 Green 2 code assigned to the overdose call was correct because no immediately life-threatening symptoms were reported.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the 999 call made by Mr Dooley on 28 October 2012 he advised that he had taken an overdose of medication. The Emergency Medical Dispatcher (EMD) confirmed that Mr Dooley was conscious and breathing and the system generated a Green 2 response code. MPDS is designed to elicit priority symptoms from a caller, for example, whether the patient is alert, conscious and breathing. If a patient has a compromised airway or is in cardiac arrest the system recognises that they require immediate, life sustaining, treatment and will generate a Red response code. Had Mr Dooley indicated any of these priority symptoms MPDS would have generated a higher response code.”

Source location

2014-0162-Response-by-North-West-Ambulance-Service
Page 2 · response
Published 10 April 2014

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 computer-generated MPDS codes were not misleading because their meaning and generation were explained in evidence at the inquest.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Computer generated codes”

Source location

2014-0162-Response-by-North-West-Ambulance-Service
Page 3 · response
Published 10 April 2014

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

There was no lack of communication because the dispatcher explained the high demand and advised calling back if the patient's condition worsened.

Verbatim wording from the response

““There appears to have been a lack of communication. The call handler believed that a response vehicle would be dispatched in 20 minutes.””

Source location

2014-0162-Response-by-North-West-Ambulance-Service
Page 3 · response
Published 10 April 2014

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026