PFD report

Maria Simpson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Jan 2025•Gloucestershire

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. Lack of interoperable electronic patient-record systems between general practices
    Part of recurring concern: Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionablePart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably transfer medical records between healthcare organisations
  2. Failure of case management systems to store all historic patient documents electronically
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

    National rollout of the Document Repository is conditional on securing funding.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareUnable 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

Lack of interoperable electronic patient-record systems between general practices

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was given in the inquest to the effect that medical General Practitioners have no uniform national case management system for electronic storage of patients’ records. This leads to a situation whereby, upon transfer of patient records from one practice to another, the receiving practice is obliged to input all the records afresh if the practices operate different systems. This can lead to delay in the compilation of records. Further, it appears that a case management system is unable to store electronically all historic documents such as referral letters from one clinician to another, due to electronic capacity issues. This leads to a situation where some patient information is stored electronically and some in paper form making it difficult for the GP to note quickly all relevant patient information. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable; Failure to reliably transfer medical records between healthcare organisations.

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 case management systems to store all historic patient documents electronically

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was given in the inquest to the effect that medical General Practitioners have no uniform national case management system for electronic storage of patients’ records. This leads to a situation whereby, upon transfer of patient records from one practice to another, the receiving practice is obliged to input all the records afresh if the practices operate different systems. This can lead to delay in the compilation of records. Further, it appears that a case management system is unable to store electronically all historic documents such as referral letters from one clinician to another, due to electronic capacity issues. This leads to a situation where some patient information is stored electronically and some in paper form making it difficult for the GP to note quickly all relevant patient information. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

National rollout of the Document Repository is conditional on securing funding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a National Document Repository. The National Document Repository is supporting storage of and access to scanned Lloyd George records. The system is due to be rolled out nationally in financial year 2025/26, subject to securing funding.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 3 · response
Published 13 January 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

Existing GMS requirements and GP2GP enable electronic patient records to transfer between practices using different systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The NHS General Medical Services (GMS) contract regulations stipulate that contractors must keep ‘adequate’ patient records either on forms provided by NHSE, in computerised records, or a combination of both. The contract also states that any computer system must meet the requirements set out in the GPIT Operating model and that the contractor must have regard for the guidance laid out in Digital Primary Care: Good Practice Guidelines for GP electronic patient records.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 1 · response
Published 13 January 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026