PFD report

Paul David Whitehead · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Dec 2015•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 raised4

  1. Failure of First Aid provision to maintain effective resuscitation capability
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure staff competence in resuscitationPart of recurring concern: Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid
  2. Failure of emergency-site access and wayfinding to expedite Ambulance arrival
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely direction and escort for arriving paramedicsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency access arrangements for responders
  3. Lack of immediately available First Aid provision
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide adequate first aid where emergency assistance may be neededPart of recurring concern: Unreliable on-site emergency medical and first-aid response arrangements
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

    Refresh all first aiders’ first-aid training regularly in line with HSE guidance.

    Stated by W.E.Rawson LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 December 2015.
  2. Action

    Provide flashlights in the security cabin for lookouts to attract emergency services’ attention.

    Stated by W.E.Rawson LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 December 2015.
  3. Action

    Complete a full review and compile a controlled Emergency Procedures document addressing the reported safety concerns.

    Stated by W.E.Rawson LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 December 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    It is difficult to prepare non-medical first aiders to avoid freezing from shock during incidents as severe as this one.

    Stated by W.E.Rawson LimitedUnable 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

Failure of First Aid provision to maintain effective resuscitation capability

Wider context from the report

“(1) When Mr Whitehead was released from the machine and fell on to the floor, a witness said that there was no one in the vicinity able to give First Aid to the casualty. (2) The designated First Aider from the Security Office, when informed of the incident, rang the Health and Safety Manager before calling for an Ambulance. The statement giving this evidence was challenged, however, by the evidence taken at the Inquest from the Health and Safety Manager. (3) The First Aider who attended the casualty was herself in shock and unable to carry out mouth to mouth resuscitation. (4) The Paramedic who initially attended in response to the 999 call said in a statement that on arriving at the large site of W E Rawson Ltd the Ambulance stopped in a small car park but could not see anyone around and had to drive back on to the main road before eventually finding someone stood by a fire exit door. The Paramedic’s statement said that from arriving at the site to arriving with the patient took approximately five minutes. These factors in combination suggest that the emergency response procedures at W E Rawson Ltd were not sufficiently efficient or effective. Whilst it is unlikely that these factors contributed to Mr Whitehead’s eventual death, they do give rise to the concern that if another emergency were to arise involving a time critical situation, an avoidable death might occur. Evidence was taken at the Inquest to the effect that the Disaster Recovery Plan at W E Rawson Ltd was reviewed after Mr Whitehead’s death but the conclusion reached that no significant changes were required. I consider that a further review of the standard of First Aid provision is merited along with the actions to be taken in the immediate aftermath of an unexpected occurrence to ensure that the Emergency Services are contacted immediately and steps taken to expedite their arrival with any casualty. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure staff competence in resuscitation; Inadequate staff competence to provide first aid.

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 emergency-site access and wayfinding to expedite Ambulance arrival

Wider context from the report

“(1) When Mr Whitehead was released from the machine and fell on to the floor, a witness said that there was no one in the vicinity able to give First Aid to the casualty. (2) The designated First Aider from the Security Office, when informed of the incident, rang the Health and Safety Manager before calling for an Ambulance. The statement giving this evidence was challenged, however, by the evidence taken at the Inquest from the Health and Safety Manager. (3) The First Aider who attended the casualty was herself in shock and unable to carry out mouth to mouth resuscitation. (4) The Paramedic who initially attended in response to the 999 call said in a statement that on arriving at the large site of W E Rawson Ltd the Ambulance stopped in a small car park but could not see anyone around and had to drive back on to the main road before eventually finding someone stood by a fire exit door. The Paramedic’s statement said that from arriving at the site to arriving with the patient took approximately five minutes. These factors in combination suggest that the emergency response procedures at W E Rawson Ltd were not sufficiently efficient or effective. Whilst it is unlikely that these factors contributed to Mr Whitehead’s eventual death, they do give rise to the concern that if another emergency were to arise involving a time critical situation, an avoidable death might occur. Evidence was taken at the Inquest to the effect that the Disaster Recovery Plan at W E Rawson Ltd was reviewed after Mr Whitehead’s death but the conclusion reached that no significant changes were required. I consider that a further review of the standard of First Aid provision is merited along with the actions to be taken in the immediate aftermath of an unexpected occurrence to ensure that the Emergency Services are contacted immediately and steps taken to expedite their arrival with any casualty. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely direction and escort for arriving paramedics; Unreliable emergency access arrangements for responders.

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 immediately available First Aid provision

Wider context from the report

“(1) When Mr Whitehead was released from the machine and fell on to the floor, a witness said that there was no one in the vicinity able to give First Aid to the casualty. (2) The designated First Aider from the Security Office, when informed of the incident, rang the Health and Safety Manager before calling for an Ambulance. The statement giving this evidence was challenged, however, by the evidence taken at the Inquest from the Health and Safety Manager. (3) The First Aider who attended the casualty was herself in shock and unable to carry out mouth to mouth resuscitation. (4) The Paramedic who initially attended in response to the 999 call said in a statement that on arriving at the large site of W E Rawson Ltd the Ambulance stopped in a small car park but could not see anyone around and had to drive back on to the main road before eventually finding someone stood by a fire exit door. The Paramedic’s statement said that from arriving at the site to arriving with the patient took approximately five minutes. These factors in combination suggest that the emergency response procedures at W E Rawson Ltd were not sufficiently efficient or effective. Whilst it is unlikely that these factors contributed to Mr Whitehead’s eventual death, they do give rise to the concern that if another emergency were to arise involving a time critical situation, an avoidable death might occur. Evidence was taken at the Inquest to the effect that the Disaster Recovery Plan at W E Rawson Ltd was reviewed after Mr Whitehead’s death but the conclusion reached that no significant changes were required. I consider that a further review of the standard of First Aid provision is merited along with the actions to be taken in the immediate aftermath of an unexpected occurrence to ensure that the Emergency Services are contacted immediately and steps taken to expedite their arrival with any casualty. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide adequate first aid where emergency assistance may be needed; Unreliable on-site emergency medical and first-aid response arrangements.

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 calling an Ambulance after an incident

Wider context from the report

“(1) When Mr Whitehead was released from the machine and fell on to the floor, a witness said that there was no one in the vicinity able to give First Aid to the casualty. (2) The designated First Aider from the Security Office, when informed of the incident, rang the Health and Safety Manager before calling for an Ambulance. The statement giving this evidence was challenged, however, by the evidence taken at the Inquest from the Health and Safety Manager. (3) The First Aider who attended the casualty was herself in shock and unable to carry out mouth to mouth resuscitation. (4) The Paramedic who initially attended in response to the 999 call said in a statement that on arriving at the large site of W E Rawson Ltd the Ambulance stopped in a small car park but could not see anyone around and had to drive back on to the main road before eventually finding someone stood by a fire exit door. The Paramedic’s statement said that from arriving at the site to arriving with the patient took approximately five minutes. These factors in combination suggest that the emergency response procedures at W E Rawson Ltd were not sufficiently efficient or effective. Whilst it is unlikely that these factors contributed to Mr Whitehead’s eventual death, they do give rise to the concern that if another emergency were to arise involving a time critical situation, an avoidable death might occur. Evidence was taken at the Inquest to the effect that the Disaster Recovery Plan at W E Rawson Ltd was reviewed after Mr Whitehead’s death but the conclusion reached that no significant changes were required. I consider that a further review of the standard of First Aid provision is merited along with the actions to be taken in the immediate aftermath of an unexpected occurrence to ensure that the Emergency Services are contacted immediately and steps taken to expedite their arrival with any casualty. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to call an ambulance promptly when emergency assistance is required.

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

Refresh all first aiders’ first-aid training regularly in line with HSE guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will prepare all of our first aiders so far as possible by refreshing their first aid training on a regular basis in line with HSE guidance. The First Aider in question has already been provided with refresher training following the incident.”

Source location

Paul-Whitehead-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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

Provide flashlights in the security cabin for lookouts to attract emergency services’ attention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The revised Emergency procedures document now clearly states that the “lookouts” must be stationed at all of the access points to the site. Additionally we are ensuring that flash lights are kept in the security cabin which the lookouts are required to use as an aid for attracting the attention of the emergency services.”

Source location

Paul-Whitehead-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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

Complete a full review and compile a controlled Emergency Procedures document addressing the reported safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for your letter dated 15 December 2015. We have undertaken a full review of our Emergency Procedures and have compiled a new controlled document to be issued to all staff as a refresher. This document is also included in the induction process for all new employees and contractors. We have enclosed this document and we feel that it covers all of the points you have raised. Additionally in response to the matters raised in the Regulation 28 Report to prevent future deaths, I have the following information;”

Source location

Paul-Whitehead-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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 the new Emergency Procedures document to all personnel as a refresher, including instructions to call emergency services promptly and station lookouts at site access points.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for your letter dated 15 December 2015. We have undertaken a full review of our Emergency Procedures and have compiled a new controlled document to be issued to all staff as a refresher. This document is also included in the induction process for all new employees and contractors. We have enclosed this document and we feel that it covers all of the points you have raised. Additionally in response to the matters raised in the Regulation 28 Report to prevent future deaths, I have the following information;”

Source location

Paul-Whitehead-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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

Introduce appointed persons across factory departments and train production charge hands in basic first aid and initial emergency response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is proposed to introduce a number of ‘Appointed Persons’ within the factory departments. Production Charge Hands across the manufacturing facility will be trained in basic first aid skills and will be able to provide initial and first response aid to a person in the event of an accident or injury in the immediate vicinity. The existing first aiders (First Aid at Work qualification) would then take over once arriving at the scene of an incident. We would expect this to enable a more immediate response in the event of a future incident. We are targeting this to be implemented and training provided as suggested above by 31 March 2016.”

Source location

Paul-Whitehead-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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

It is difficult to prepare non-medical first aiders to avoid freezing from shock during incidents as severe as this one.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3) The First Aider was unable to perform mouth to mouth resuscitation.”

Source location

Paul-Whitehead-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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 first aider correctly prioritised the emergency-services call before contacting the company Health and Safety manager.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2) Mixed evidence about whether the designated first aider prioritised actions correctly and called the Ambulance or the company Health & Safety manager first.”

Source location

Paul-Whitehead-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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

    Include the new Emergency Procedures document in induction for all new employees and contractors.

    Stated by W.E.Rawson LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 December 2015.

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

Include the new Emergency Procedures document in induction for all new employees and contractors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for your letter dated 15 December 2015. We have undertaken a full review of our Emergency Procedures and have compiled a new controlled document to be issued to all staff as a refresher. This document is also included in the induction process for all new employees and contractors. We have enclosed this document and we feel that it covers all of the points you have raised. Additionally in response to the matters raised in the Regulation 28 Report to prevent future deaths, I have the following information;”

Source location

Paul-Whitehead-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 14 December 2015

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