PFD report

Linda Janet Sharp · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Sep 2025•East Riding and Hull

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

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 recognise that a low Wells score does not exclude DVT or PE
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably diagnose and refer suspected DVTPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recognition and management of pulmonary embolism
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.2

  1. Action

    Promote the e-learning module through the members’ network and the Chair’s blog.

    Stated by Royal College of General PractitionersStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 September 2025.
  2. Action

    Develop an e-learning module highlighting correct interpretation of the DVT Wells score.

    Stated by Royal College of General PractitionersStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 September 2025.

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 recognise that a low Wells score does not exclude DVT or PE

Wider context from the report

“Expert evidence was heard which stated that it is fundamentally flawed to conflate a low Wells score with there being no possibility of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or a pulmonary embolism (PE). A Wells score on its own does not exclude a DVT or PE. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably diagnose and refer suspected DVT; Unreliable recognition and management of pulmonary embolism.

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

Promote the e-learning module through the members’ network and the Chair’s blog.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The College has therefore commissioned some internal work through our eLearning team to highlight the specific issue of interpretation of the Wells score. We shall aim to publish this to be available to members in the first quarter of 2026 and the college will be responsible for the production and content of the eLearning module. We shall promote this through our members network and our regular Chair’s blog which reaches out to all 54,000 of our members.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of General Practitioners
Page 2 · response
Published 19 September 2025

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

Develop an e-learning module highlighting correct interpretation of the DVT Wells score.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The College has therefore commissioned some internal work through our eLearning team to highlight the specific issue of interpretation of the Wells score. We shall aim to publish this to be available to members in the first quarter of 2026 and the college will be responsible for the production and content of the eLearning module. We shall promote this through our members network and our regular Chair’s blog which reaches out to all 54,000 of our members.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of General Practitioners
Page 2 · response
Published 19 September 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.5

  1. 1

    Improve vehicle maintenance processes for steering components.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 September 2025.
  2. 2

    Issue an Electronic Safety Notice to prevent missed steering-system misalignment checks.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 September 2025.
  3. 3

    Review feedback mechanisms for communication between fault referrers and repairers.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 September 2025.
  4. 4

    Update MOD Land Rover maintenance guidance and inspection criteria to provide a comprehensive long-term wheel-alignment solution.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 September 2025.
  5. 5

    Monitor vehicle-safety improvement work and continue seeking assurances about vehicle safety and reliability.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 September 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.4

  1. 1

    Matching timestamps for multiple repairs generally reflect users batch-entering records after completing simultaneous or multiple repairs.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    JAMES is considered fit for purpose because standardised terminology, user training and operating procedures support safe system use.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  3. 3

    Vehicle maintenance oversight is considered sufficient because policy-based inspections, JAMES records, and annual audits support inspection, checking and audit processes.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  4. 4

    JAMES provides sufficient data access and governance through structured reports, dashboards, authorised extraction, maintenance histories and mandated annual audits.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Improve vehicle maintenance processes for steering components.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The circumstances surrounding Ms Moore’s death are deeply troubling, and I have reflected on the findings of your Inquest with great care. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the improvements the MOD has made to vehicle maintenance processes, particularly in relation to steering components, since this tragic event. I have sought additional assurances to confirm that all reasonably foreseeable risks are being monitored and mitigated.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 1 · response
Published 19 September 2025

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

Issue an Electronic Safety Notice to prevent missed steering-system misalignment checks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With specific reference to the repair and maintenance of the MOD Land Rover, particularly the steering box, an Electronic Safety Notice (ESN) has been issued to mitigate against steering system misalignment checks being missed. Concurrently, work is underway to update the inspection criteria for MOD Land Rovers, ensuring a comprehensive and long-term solution.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 5 · response
Published 19 September 2025

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

Review feedback mechanisms for communication between fault referrers and repairers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“JAMES primarily tracks task completion, timing, and outcomes. It logs the departmental originator of faults (e.g. Motor Transport) and allows follow-up. Feedback mechanisms are under review and though log-in data and user identifiers are recorded, JAMES is not designed for ongoing dialogue between referrers and repairers. Users are trained to provide concise, yet accurate entries and brief entries are common for routine faults.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 4 · response
Published 19 September 2025

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

Update MOD Land Rover maintenance guidance and inspection criteria to provide a comprehensive long-term wheel-alignment solution.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am confident that the Electronic Safety Notice issued will address the risk of steering system misalignment being missed again. Furthermore, work to update vehicle maintenance guidance for MOD Land Rovers is progressing, and this will provide a robust, long-term solution to wheel alignment checks. I remain committed to monitoring these efforts closely and will continue to seek assurances regarding the safety and reliability of our vehicles.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 1 · response
Published 19 September 2025

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

Monitor vehicle-safety improvement work and continue seeking assurances about vehicle safety and reliability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am confident that the Electronic Safety Notice issued will address the risk of steering system misalignment being missed again. Furthermore, work to update vehicle maintenance guidance for MOD Land Rovers is progressing, and this will provide a robust, long-term solution to wheel alignment checks. I remain committed to monitoring these efforts closely and will continue to seek assurances regarding the safety and reliability of our vehicles.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 1 · response
Published 19 September 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

Matching timestamps for multiple repairs generally reflect users batch-entering records after completing simultaneous or multiple repairs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The term “ad hoc” in JAMES refers to inspections outside scheduled Maintenance Engineering Inspections or servicing, such as post-incident checks or handovers. Incidents of matching timestamps for multiple fault repairs are often a result of batch processing onto JAMES by the user, who would enter data onto the system in one go after completing multiple or simultaneous repairs.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 4 · response
Published 19 September 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

JAMES is considered fit for purpose because standardised terminology, user training and operating procedures support safe system use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“JAMES employs standardised engineering and maintenance terminology aligned with Army Equipment Support Publications. All users are required to complete training via the Learning Management System to understand the terminology and effectively navigate the system. Though it has been in use for some time (and is indeed due to be replaced in 2027), it is considered functional and fit for purpose by the user community, and the training equips personnel with the skills to operate it successfully. The digital nature of the system does not lend itself to clear presentation of the interface in hardcopy form, and I understand this was an issue during the inquest.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 3 · response
Published 19 September 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

Vehicle maintenance oversight is considered sufficient because policy-based inspections, JAMES records, and annual audits support inspection, checking and audit processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Inspections are conducted in line with policies and publications and recorded in JAMES. As referenced at point 2, the system supports internal and external audits, and all Army Land Equipment holdings are audited annually.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 5 · response
Published 19 September 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

JAMES provides sufficient data access and governance through structured reports, dashboards, authorised extraction, maintenance histories and mandated annual audits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“JAMES is optimised for digital use, with structured dashboards and reports that support inspections, audits, and fleet management. Data extraction is routine for authorised users, and higher-level accounts enable data access across formations. PowerBI dashboards further enhance managerial oversight.”

Source location

Response from Minister of State for Defence
Page 3 · response
Published 19 September 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

Official responses located
2/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026