PFD report

Katie Emma Corrigan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Feb 2021•Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
13

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 raised3

  1. Failure of doctors considering opiate prescriptions to contact the registered GP
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably escalate patient safety concerns to primary carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPs
  2. Lack of an effective national procedure for circulating Patient Alerts to pharmacies
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical safety-alert systemsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable dissemination of safety alerts to relevant recipients
  3. Failure of dispensing pharmacists to contact the registered GP when checking prescription appropriateness
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPs
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.5

  1. Action

    Share key learning and practice points from the inquest with relevant providers and stakeholders.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  2. Action

    Inspect each registered online provider identified from the inquest and review their medication-prescribing management processes.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  3. Action

    Continue using enforcement powers to require improvements when online providers fail to meet regulatory requirements.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 February 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    NHSEI is responsible for systems oversight of controlled-drug management and use, including the alert system’s operation.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects 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 doctors considering opiate prescriptions to contact the registered GP

Wider context from the report

“The GP who gave evidence at the inquest, Dr ████████ from Bodriggy Health Centre in Hayle, stated that she had never been contacted by any other doctor considering the prescription of opiate or other medication to Mrs Corrigan. She was able to procure the medication in sufficient quantities first to require an emergency admission to hospital and latterly to result in her death. Similarly, the registered GP was not contacted by any dispensing pharmacist checking whether the prescription was appropriate. After Dr ████████ became aware of the two on-line pharmacies who had dispensed the medication to Mrs Corrigan that led to her admission into hospital, she attempted to raise an alert through NHS England, in order that the unsuitability of prescribing opiate medication to Mrs Corrigan could be raised with clinicians. This was sent out regionally but Dr ████████ has since been advised there is no formal procedure for circulating Patient Alerts to pharmacies on a national level. I am further given to understand that non NHS contacts would only receive a redacted version of the alert in any event. What seems clear is that the alert proved ineffective in preventing Mrs Corrigan from improperly obtaining sufficient quantities of opiate medication to result in her death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably escalate patient safety concerns to primary care; Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPs.

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 an effective national procedure for circulating Patient Alerts to pharmacies

Wider context from the report

“The GP who gave evidence at the inquest, Dr ████████ from Bodriggy Health Centre in Hayle, stated that she had never been contacted by any other doctor considering the prescription of opiate or other medication to Mrs Corrigan. She was able to procure the medication in sufficient quantities first to require an emergency admission to hospital and latterly to result in her death. Similarly, the registered GP was not contacted by any dispensing pharmacist checking whether the prescription was appropriate. After Dr ████████ became aware of the two on-line pharmacies who had dispensed the medication to Mrs Corrigan that led to her admission into hospital, she attempted to raise an alert through NHS England, in order that the unsuitability of prescribing opiate medication to Mrs Corrigan could be raised with clinicians. This was sent out regionally but Dr ████████ has since been advised there is no formal procedure for circulating Patient Alerts to pharmacies on a national level. I am further given to understand that non NHS contacts would only receive a redacted version of the alert in any event. What seems clear is that the alert proved ineffective in preventing Mrs Corrigan from improperly obtaining sufficient quantities of opiate medication to result in her death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical safety-alert systems; Unreliable dissemination of safety alerts to relevant recipients.

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 dispensing pharmacists to contact the registered GP when checking prescription appropriateness

Wider context from the report

“The GP who gave evidence at the inquest, Dr ████████ from Bodriggy Health Centre in Hayle, stated that she had never been contacted by any other doctor considering the prescription of opiate or other medication to Mrs Corrigan. She was able to procure the medication in sufficient quantities first to require an emergency admission to hospital and latterly to result in her death. Similarly, the registered GP was not contacted by any dispensing pharmacist checking whether the prescription was appropriate. After Dr ████████ became aware of the two on-line pharmacies who had dispensed the medication to Mrs Corrigan that led to her admission into hospital, she attempted to raise an alert through NHS England, in order that the unsuitability of prescribing opiate medication to Mrs Corrigan could be raised with clinicians. This was sent out regionally but Dr ████████ has since been advised there is no formal procedure for circulating Patient Alerts to pharmacies on a national level. I am further given to understand that non NHS contacts would only receive a redacted version of the alert in any event. What seems clear is that the alert proved ineffective in preventing Mrs Corrigan from improperly obtaining sufficient quantities of opiate medication to result in her death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPs.

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

Share key learning and practice points from the inquest with relevant providers and stakeholders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where CQC identifies that regulations are not being met, we use our enforcement powers to require improvements to be made. We continue to do this and will share key learning and practice points from the inquest into the death of Katie Corrigan.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Inspect each registered online provider identified from the inquest and review their medication-prescribing management processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CQC has inspected each of the registered online providers that you identified from the inquest into Ms Corrigan’s death that Ms Corrigan may have used. At each inspection, management processes for prescribing medications were reviewed and if concerns were identified we took regulatory action against the provider or the inspection report shared details of the areas needing improvement.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Continue using enforcement powers to require improvements when online providers fail to meet regulatory requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where CQC identifies that regulations are not being met, we use our enforcement powers to require improvements to be made. We continue to do this and will share key learning and practice points from the inquest into the death of Katie Corrigan.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Submit proposals to DHSC for legislative changes addressing regulatory safety gaps in independent online primary care services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since January 2021 CQC has been in discussions with, and submitted, proposals for legislative changes to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), to improve CQC’s ability to take action against independent providers of online primary care services that are putting people’s lives at risk. In particular, we are looking to address safety gaps in the following areas:”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Publish guidance setting expectations for providers to inform patients’ GPs about prescribed medicines and assess safety when information sharing is declined.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CQC has published guidance for providers¹. The guidance describes the expectations of providers to ensure a patient’s GP is informed of prescribed medications from their service. We also expect that should the patient decline to consent for the sharing of such information to take place, the prescriber should consider whether it is still safe to continue and accept the full responsibility for their actions and act in line with GMC prescribing guidance.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

NHSEI is responsible for systems oversight of controlled-drug management and use, including the alert system’s operation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the effectiveness of NHS England and NHS Improvement’s (NHSEI’s) alert system in preventing people from obtaining prescription-only medicines improperly, my officials have brought your concerns to the attention of NHSEI.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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.8

  1. 1

    Work more closely with partner regulators and government organisations to identify opportunities for improving oversight of online providers.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  2. 2

    Investigate the identified unregistered online providers and take appropriate enforcement action when enquiries conclude.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  3. 3

    Continue discussions with DHSC to update regulation of online providers and address current and emerging safety threats.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  4. 4

    Commission an evidence review examining prescription-drug dependence and possible measures to address it.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  5. 5

    Engage actively with the Home Office, MHRA, CQC, GPhC and other stakeholders on codeine linctus misuse.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  6. 6

    Work with health system leaders to provide evidence on medicine safety and risks for controlled-drug scheduling decisions.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  7. 7

    Work with healthcare regulators to explore strengthening regulation of independent online prescribers.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 February 2021.
  8. 8

    Work with the CQC to carefully consider proposals for legislative change addressing unsafe independent online providers.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 February 2021.

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

  1. 1

    Legislative barriers restrict CQC’s ability to regulate unsafe online providers, particularly where providers or prescribers are based outside the UK.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. 2

    Extending regulation to all online prescribing services requires legislative change involving the Department of Health and Social Care.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. 3

    The Home Office decides controlled-drug scheduling, informed by Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advice.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  4. 4

    The MHRA, as the independent medicines regulator, is reviewing codeine’s legal status and will assess relevant evidence.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects 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

Work more closely with partner regulators and government organisations to identify opportunities for improving oversight of online providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“DHSC are currently working with CQC to look at how regulation can be best updated to address the areas outlined above, as well as to address current and emerging threats to the health, safety and wellbeing of service users from online providers. This includes looking at what issues can be addressed through legislative change (primary and secondary). CQC is also looking to work more closely with our partners, other regulators (including MHRA and GPhC) and other government organisations to explore other opportunities for taking this work forward.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Investigate the identified unregistered online providers and take appropriate enforcement action when enquiries conclude.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have identified that two of the online providers whose details you shared are not currently registered to carry on regulated activities. You may be aware that under section 10 Health and Social Care Act 2008 it is an offence for persons to carry on regulated activities without being registered with the CQC to do so. We are currently following our processes to investigate those providers you shared with us, to ensure these do not remain as unregistered providers and we may take enforcement action as appropriate and necessary upon conclusion of our enquiries.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Continue discussions with DHSC to update regulation of online providers and address current and emerging safety threats.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since January 2021 CQC has been in discussions with, and submitted, proposals for legislative changes to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), to improve CQC’s ability to take action against independent providers of online primary care services that are putting people’s lives at risk. In particular, we are looking to address safety gaps in the following areas:”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Commission an evidence review examining prescription-drug dependence and possible measures to address it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2017, the Government asked Public Health England to conduct an evidence review to identify the scale, distribution and causes of prescription drug dependence, and what might be done to address it. PHE’s report of the review was published in September 2019¹⁰, providing evidence for dependence on, and withdrawal from, prescribed medicines, with the aim of making sure that local healthcare systems build awareness and support to enhance clinician and patient decision making.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Engage actively with the Home Office, MHRA, CQC, GPhC and other stakeholders on codeine linctus misuse.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the last year, there has been increased police activity and enforcement action by the GPhC in relation to codeine linctus and its misuse in the preparation of a street drug. There is active engagement between this Department and the Home Office, and with relevant stakeholders including the MHRA, the CQC and the GPhC on this issue.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Work with health system leaders to provide evidence on medicine safety and risks for controlled-drug scheduling decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“taken by the Home Office. This is done with the provision of advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Any decisions must weigh up the risks of misuse, abuse and diversion, against not impeding legitimate use within healthcare. This Department works closely with health system leaders to provide evidence of safety and risk associated with medicines to help inform such decisions.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Work with healthcare regulators to explore strengthening regulation of independent online prescribers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department continues to work with healthcare regulators (the CQC), and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)), and professional regulators (the General Medical Council (GMC) and the GPhC), and others, to explore how the regulation of independent online prescribers can be strengthened.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Work with the CQC to carefully consider proposals for legislative change addressing unsafe independent online providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you know, the CQC has identified proposals for legislative change to improve its ability to take action against independent online providers where there is unsafe practice and I can provide assurance that we will work with the CQC to consider these proposals carefully.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Legislative barriers restrict CQC’s ability to regulate unsafe online providers, particularly where providers or prescribers are based outside the UK.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the last few years, CQC has extensively engaged with members of a UK-wide cross-regulatory forum to improve oversight of these providers. Although CQC has taken enforcement action against online providers we also identify that our ability to regulate in this space in certain circumstances where we see unsafe or criminal practice is restricted by legislative barriers and limitations in this area. CQC recognises the regulatory framework in this area needs to be updated to address emerging risks and to ensure independent online prescribers adhere to safe practice.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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

Extending regulation to all online prescribing services requires legislative change involving the Department of Health and Social Care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• All online prescribing services accessible by patients in England should be regulated by the CQC, regardless of which professional groups are doing”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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 Home Office decides controlled-drug scheduling, informed by Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Turning to the comments in your report about controlled drugs regulations, as your report identifies, decisions on the scheduling of controlled drugs under the relevant legislation are”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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 MHRA, as the independent medicines regulator, is reviewing codeine’s legal status and will assess relevant evidence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You highlight in your report that you have been advised that a change in the status of codeine linctus from a pharmacy medicine to a prescription-only medicine is needed.”

Source location

2021-0045-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 22 February 2021

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026