PFD report

Colin Moulton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Jul 2015•Manchester North

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
4

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 to provide the receiving triage nurse with access to and sight of the paramedic pro-forma
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance-to-emergency-department patient-information handoverPart of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processes
  2. Failure to notify the hospital trust of ambulance presence within hospital grounds
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably notify receiving hospital staff of ambulance arrivals
  3. Failure to document the receiving triage nurse's access to and sight of the paramedic pro-forma
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance-to-emergency-department patient-information handover
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.3

  1. Position

    The Department considers the concerns matters for local comment and resolution rather than national action.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 provide the receiving triage nurse with access to and sight of the paramedic pro-forma

Wider context from the report

“1. When Mr Moulton was admitted to A & E on the 13th February 2013, critical information was conveyed by means of an audible handover from the paramedic to the receiving triage nurse. Following this incident, the Pennine Acute Trust now requires the receiving triage nurse to have access to and have sight of the paramedic pro-forma with the additional requirement that those actions be documented. It would be helpful if an additional copy of the paramedic pro-forma could be given to and remain with the receiving triage nurse. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services; Unreliable ambulance-to-emergency-department patient-information handover; Unreliable clinical handover processes.

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 to notify the hospital trust of ambulance presence within hospital grounds

Wider context from the report

“2. At approximately 5pm on the 13th February 2013, a number of administrative staff, whilst en-route home saw Colin Moulton within the hospital grounds near to the Irwell Unit. They perceived him to be ‘ in difficulty’. One of the staff members called for the assistance of an ambulance which duly attended and a paramedics on board apparently were unable to locate Mr Moulton. Had the Ambulance Trust notified the Hospital Trust of their presence within the hospital grounds, this may have tied in with earlier concerns in relation to Mr Moulton of which the Hospital Trust was aware. The Ambulance Trust is requested to consider whether in the future, third parties such as Hospital Trusts might be notified in such circumstances. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably notify receiving hospital staff of ambulance arrivals.

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 to document the receiving triage nurse's access to and sight of the paramedic pro-forma

Wider context from the report

“1. When Mr Moulton was admitted to A & E on the 13th February 2013, critical information was conveyed by means of an audible handover from the paramedic to the receiving triage nurse. Following this incident, the Pennine Acute Trust now requires the receiving triage nurse to have access to and have sight of the paramedic pro-forma with the additional requirement that those actions be documented. It would be helpful if an additional copy of the paramedic pro-forma could be given to and remain with the receiving triage nurse. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance-to-emergency-department patient-information handover.

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

The Department considers the concerns matters for local comment and resolution rather than national action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I consider that both of your concerns are for local comment and resolution and I note that you have sent a copy of your report to the NWAS. I am aware that NWAS has already responded, addressing the issues you raise and asking that you redirect your specific concerns to FGH for its consideration also.”

Source location

2015-0267-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 1 · response
Published 10 July 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

Specific concerns should be redirected to Fairfield General Hospital for consideration after North West Ambulance Service’s response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I consider that both of your concerns are for local comment and resolution and I note that you have sent a copy of your report to the NWAS. I am aware that NWAS has already responded, addressing the issues you raise and asking that you redirect your specific concerns to FGH for its consideration also.”

Source location

2015-0267-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 1 · response
Published 10 July 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

Existing handover procedures should ensure triage staff access important patient information, so retaining paramedic notes is not required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NWAS has advised that its staff always leave a patient report form (PRF) at every hospital following a patient transfer. A copy of this form also remains with the patient following admission.”

Source location

2015-0267-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The standard of nursing care is a matter for the local Trust, preventing personal comment or national action on it.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 standard of nursing care is a matter for the local Trust, preventing personal comment or national action on it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note that this case also raises issues about the standard of nursing care, which, in this instance, you consider amounted to neglect. Whilst I cannot comment personally on a matter which is for the local Trust to address, I can confirm that all nurses must register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and meet set professional standards so they are fit for practise in the UK.”

Source location

2015-0267-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 3 · response
Published 10 July 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
1/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026