PFD report

Kevin Robert Miles · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Feb 2019•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised2

  1. Reliance on divers’ self-reporting failing to ensure disclosure of salient health facts
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable medical fitness controls for diversPart of recurring concern: Unsafe diving operations
  2. Lack of requirement to obtain divers’ General Practitioner records or enquire into other practitioners’ treatment or advice
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable medical fitness controls for diversPart of recurring concern: Unsafe diving operations
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.2

  1. Position

    Obtaining full, unadjusted medical records for all divers is impractical because general practitioners refuse non-NHS forms.

    Stated by UK Diving Medical CommitteeUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Reliance on divers’ self-reporting failing to ensure disclosure of salient health facts

Wider context from the report

“An Occupational Health Physician, who is also a UK Sport Diving Medical Referee and an HSE Approved Medical Examiner of Divers certified Mr Miles as fit to dive for two years on the 30 January 2018 based on the information given to her by Mr Miles himself in the medical questionnaire and on her physical examination of him. There is currently no requirement to obtain the diver’s General Practitioner records (which are often a ‘hub’ of various information regarding treatment by both hospital and/or private clinic) or otherwise personally enquire into treatment or advice given by any other medical practitioner. In my opinion this system is open for misreporting of health problems or, in fact, failing to report them at all. If there had been a requirement to obtain Mr Miles GP records it would have been quite clear that he had been advised that he should not dive again and presumably the certificate would not have been granted. My concerns are that not only may divers be risking their own lives by not disclosing salient health facts (that is at their own risk) but that they are also putting the lives of potential rescuers/dive buddies at risk as well. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable medical fitness controls for divers; Unsafe diving operations.

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 requirement to obtain divers’ General Practitioner records or enquire into other practitioners’ treatment or advice

Wider context from the report

“An Occupational Health Physician, who is also a UK Sport Diving Medical Referee and an HSE Approved Medical Examiner of Divers certified Mr Miles as fit to dive for two years on the 30 January 2018 based on the information given to her by Mr Miles himself in the medical questionnaire and on her physical examination of him. There is currently no requirement to obtain the diver’s General Practitioner records (which are often a ‘hub’ of various information regarding treatment by both hospital and/or private clinic) or otherwise personally enquire into treatment or advice given by any other medical practitioner. In my opinion this system is open for misreporting of health problems or, in fact, failing to report them at all. If there had been a requirement to obtain Mr Miles GP records it would have been quite clear that he had been advised that he should not dive again and presumably the certificate would not have been granted. My concerns are that not only may divers be risking their own lives by not disclosing salient health facts (that is at their own risk) but that they are also putting the lives of potential rescuers/dive buddies at risk as well. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable medical fitness controls for divers; Unsafe diving operations.

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

Obtaining full, unadjusted medical records for all divers is impractical because general practitioners refuse non-NHS forms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a committee, we have had a lengthy discussion about the points raised by ████████. We were all agreed that in an ideal scenario all divers or potential divers should bring copies of a full and non adjusted medical record to all consultations. However we already have a situation where our hard pressed general practitioner colleagues are refusing to sign or even fill in any forms which are none NHS work.”

Source location

Response from UKDMC
Page 1 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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 current self-certification system, including requests for further information and specialist advice, is considered sufficient; no change is needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At present, any diving referee [doctor with extra training in diving medicine] who is approached by a diver who declares a problem on the current self certification form, can ask them to provide further medical information prior to seeing them. The self certification process was brought in for sport divers in 1999 after a review of the previous system of regular medical examinations was shown to have a very low pick up of problems. The form is reviewed and altered if necessary every 2-3 years.”

Source location

Response from UKDMC
Page 1 · response
Published 26 May 2019

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