PFD report

Bernard Compton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Jun 2024•Manchester South

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised6

  1. Unavailability of timely ambulance response capacity during periods of demand
    Part of recurring concern: Delays in ambulance attendancePart of recurring concern: Insufficient ambulance service capacity for emergency calls
  2. Failure to ensure clinically indicated tests are repeated, directed and monitored
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to obtain clinically indicated repeat investigations
  3. Failure to ensure urgent blood results are acted upon immediately
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted uponPart of recurring concern: Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests
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

    Increase ambulance capacity through the Urgent and Emergency Care recovery plan.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 June 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Concerns outside NHS England’s national policy or programme remit are not addressed in this response.

    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

Unavailability of timely ambulance response capacity during periods of demand

Wider context from the report

“Demand on NWAS meant that even though they knew he had been diagnosed as being in the throes of a MI they could not get an ambulance to him in less than 45 minutes due to demand on their services. ”

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 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 ensure clinically indicated tests are repeated, directed and monitored

Wider context from the report

“The ECG told the clinician that there was a likely MI. It was entirely unclear why that was not acted on. The clinician did ask for a repeat within 30 minutes. That did not happen. There was no evidence of a system to ensure tests were repeated and directed and how that was monitored. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to obtain clinically indicated repeat investigations.

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 ensure urgent blood results are acted upon immediately

Wider context from the report

“It was unclear what system was in place to effectively ensure urgent blood results were acted upon immediately. The inquest was told the lab would telephone through on some occasions. It was unclear what the protocol was and who had oversight of it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon; Unreliable monitoring and follow-up of clinically required laboratory tests.

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 of the emergency call algorithm to identify symptoms consistent with an ongoing myocardial infarction

Wider context from the report

“When Mr Compton made his first call to NWAS he was exhibiting symptoms consistent with an ongoing MI. However the questioning via the algorithm did not pick that up. NWAS were unable to clarify why that was the case. A call from someone actively having a MI was therefore categorised as a category 3 despite the time critical nature of the condition. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Telephone triage that is unreliable and can delay necessary care; 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

Lack of overnight patient oversight and effective patient management in the Emergency

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that the delays in the Emergency were due to demand and were not unusual. It was recognised that the delays presented a risk and steps had been taken to try to mitigate them but there was no evidence that particularly during the night hours any one person had oversight of patients or that there was a system to ensure effective management of patients. The situation Mr Compton experienced was a direct consequence of the lack of oversight and system. ”

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

Delays in assessing and treating patients

Wider context from the report

“The consequence of delay in assessing and treating Mr Compton was that an opportunity to treat him effectively was not available to clinicians. ”

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

Increase ambulance capacity through the Urgent and Emergency Care recovery plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There was significant demand on both NWAS and Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust in the Autumn of last year, with the Emergency Department (ED) at Tameside under significant pressure and all areas of the ED full. Health systems remain in recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic and pressures arising from it and the societal response. NHS England’s recovery plans include a focus on Urgent and Emergency Care, with one of the plan’s nine workstreams including increasing ambulance capacity. Since October 2023, Tameside’s ED has increased its capacity as part of a planned rebuild of the unit. My regional colleagues have approached the Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board (ICB) for further information regarding your concerns, as the local commissioner of the Trust.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 7 June 2024

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

Concerns outside NHS England’s national policy or programme remit are not addressed in this response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My response to you focuses on those concerns raised in your Report that come under the remit of NHS England’s national policy or programme work. It would be more appropriate for the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) NHS Trust and Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust to respond to some of the concerns raised, and you may wish to revert to those Trusts for further information.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 7 June 2024

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

NWAS identified that the initial call was safely and appropriately triaged as Category 3 based on the symptoms provided.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My regional colleagues in the North West have also engaged with NWAS on your concerns and are advised that NWAS have identified that the call was safely and appropriately triaged as Category 3 with the symptoms provided by Bernard on the initial call. It was identified by NWAS at the time that the call was potentially suitable to be supported by clinician callback and details were sent to the Greater Manchester Clinical Assessment Service (GMCAS) for clinical assessment, as per agreed”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 7 June 2024

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

NWAS, Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, and the ICB should provide information on concerns assigned to them.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My response to you focuses on those concerns raised in your Report that come under the remit of NHS England’s national policy or programme work. It would be more appropriate for the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) NHS Trust and Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust to respond to some of the concerns raised, and you may wish to revert to those Trusts for further information.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 7 June 2024

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 Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 June 2024.

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 Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share 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 Bernard, 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
Page 3 · response
Published 7 June 2024

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026