PFD report

Regan Edwin James SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Jul 2024•Suffolk

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
4

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. Lack of national standards and guidance for the conduct of patient handovers at Accident and Emergency Units
  2. Lack of directly compatible ambulance and hospital IT systems for immediate availability of clinical information
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of ambulance information systems to transfer safety-critical clinical and operational informationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processes
  3. Failure of patient handover processes to ensure significant clinical findings are available to receiving clinicians
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of ambulance information systems to transfer safety-critical clinical and operational informationPart of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesPart of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted uponPart of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable consolidation and access to patients’ cross-service clinical risk information
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.2

  1. Action

    Develop IT support linking ambulance and emergency department systems to improve electronic clinical information sharing.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 September 2024.
  2. Action

    Roll out an ambulance dataset linking ambulance-service and emergency-department data through the emergency care data set.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 September 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Local process improvements and ambulance information systems provide an adequate response to clinical handover and patient-record concerns.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 national standards and guidance for the conduct of patient handovers at Accident and Emergency Units

Wider context from the report

“The information to save Regan’s life (his abnormal blood glucose reading) was in the possession of the NHS at a time when lifesaving treatment could have been given to him on the 25th January 2023. Regan’s death occurred as the result of an identifiable single point of failure (the ineffective handover process), as this led to a significant and known clinical finding being unavailable to his treating clinicians. Evidence heard that the handover system in Regan’s case was reliant on both ambulance and Accident and Emergency personnel making and receiving a verbal handover. The IT systems used by the Ambulance and Hospital Trusts are not directly compatible, and therefore clinical information (such as blood glucose level test results) are not immediately available to hospital personnel in every case. It was heard that Regan’s verbal only handover occurred during a period of very high acuity. On the 25th January 2023 the unit was exceptionally busy, the staff there had a high number of other sick children to care for, there was no cubicle space available, and the staff had not been able to take any of their scheduled breaks. When Regan did see a clinician, it was in the corridor. It was heard in evidence that there was no national protocol, no national standard operating procedures, and no National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, in relation to the conduct of patient handovers at Accident and Emergency Units. In addition, there is no national protocol, no national standard operating procedures, and no National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, to ensure basic observations are confirmed as being received by the receiving Accident and Emergency personnel. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 directly compatible ambulance and hospital IT systems for immediate availability of clinical information

Wider context from the report

“The information to save Regan’s life (his abnormal blood glucose reading) was in the possession of the NHS at a time when lifesaving treatment could have been given to him on the 25th January 2023. Regan’s death occurred as the result of an identifiable single point of failure (the ineffective handover process), as this led to a significant and known clinical finding being unavailable to his treating clinicians. Evidence heard that the handover system in Regan’s case was reliant on both ambulance and Accident and Emergency personnel making and receiving a verbal handover. The IT systems used by the Ambulance and Hospital Trusts are not directly compatible, and therefore clinical information (such as blood glucose level test results) are not immediately available to hospital personnel in every case. It was heard that Regan’s verbal only handover occurred during a period of very high acuity. On the 25th January 2023 the unit was exceptionally busy, the staff there had a high number of other sick children to care for, there was no cubicle space available, and the staff had not been able to take any of their scheduled breaks. When Regan did see a clinician, it was in the corridor. It was heard in evidence that there was no national protocol, no national standard operating procedures, and no National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, in relation to the conduct of patient handovers at Accident and Emergency Units. In addition, there is no national protocol, no national standard operating procedures, and no National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, to ensure basic observations are confirmed as being received by the receiving Accident and Emergency personnel. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of ambulance information systems to transfer safety-critical clinical and operational information; 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 of patient handover processes to ensure significant clinical findings are available to receiving clinicians

Wider context from the report

“The information to save Regan’s life (his abnormal blood glucose reading) was in the possession of the NHS at a time when lifesaving treatment could have been given to him on the 25th January 2023. Regan’s death occurred as the result of an identifiable single point of failure (the ineffective handover process), as this led to a significant and known clinical finding being unavailable to his treating clinicians. Evidence heard that the handover system in Regan’s case was reliant on both ambulance and Accident and Emergency personnel making and receiving a verbal handover. The IT systems used by the Ambulance and Hospital Trusts are not directly compatible, and therefore clinical information (such as blood glucose level test results) are not immediately available to hospital personnel in every case. It was heard that Regan’s verbal only handover occurred during a period of very high acuity. On the 25th January 2023 the unit was exceptionally busy, the staff there had a high number of other sick children to care for, there was no cubicle space available, and the staff had not been able to take any of their scheduled breaks. When Regan did see a clinician, it was in the corridor. It was heard in evidence that there was no national protocol, no national standard operating procedures, and no National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, in relation to the conduct of patient handovers at Accident and Emergency Units. In addition, there is no national protocol, no national standard operating procedures, and no National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, to ensure basic observations are confirmed as being received by the receiving Accident and Emergency personnel. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of ambulance information systems to transfer safety-critical clinical and operational information; Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services; Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon; Unreliable clinical handover processes; Unreliable consolidation and access to patients’ cross-service clinical risk information.

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 national standards and guidance requiring confirmation that basic observations are received by Accident and Emergency personnel

Wider context from the report

“The information to save Regan’s life (his abnormal blood glucose reading) was in the possession of the NHS at a time when lifesaving treatment could have been given to him on the 25th January 2023. Regan’s death occurred as the result of an identifiable single point of failure (the ineffective handover process), as this led to a significant and known clinical finding being unavailable to his treating clinicians. Evidence heard that the handover system in Regan’s case was reliant on both ambulance and Accident and Emergency personnel making and receiving a verbal handover. The IT systems used by the Ambulance and Hospital Trusts are not directly compatible, and therefore clinical information (such as blood glucose level test results) are not immediately available to hospital personnel in every case. It was heard that Regan’s verbal only handover occurred during a period of very high acuity. On the 25th January 2023 the unit was exceptionally busy, the staff there had a high number of other sick children to care for, there was no cubicle space available, and the staff had not been able to take any of their scheduled breaks. When Regan did see a clinician, it was in the corridor. It was heard in evidence that there was no national protocol, no national standard operating procedures, and no National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, in relation to the conduct of patient handovers at Accident and Emergency Units. In addition, there is no national protocol, no national standard operating procedures, and no National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, to ensure basic observations are confirmed as being received by the receiving Accident and Emergency personnel. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective communication during medical emergencies.

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

Develop IT support linking ambulance and emergency department systems to improve electronic clinical information sharing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The rapid exchange of clinical information verbally remains an integral part of communication. However, work is ongoing with NHSE to provide IT support that can deliver improved sharing of electronic information across systems. Linking the ambulance computer aided despatch system and electronic patient record collected by ambulance services with emergency departments data will provide better information about the patient journey.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 1 · response
Published 4 September 2024

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

Roll out an ambulance dataset linking ambulance-service and emergency-department data through the emergency care data set.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further, to support learning and system improvement, an ambulance data set is also currently being rolled out across England. This will be achieved by linking patient data collected by ambulance services with data collected by emergency departments through the emergency care data set.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 2 · response
Published 4 September 2024

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

Local process improvements and ambulance information systems provide an adequate response to clinical handover and patient-record concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the formal clinical handover of patients, there are a number of protocols that should be followed. This includes standards set out by the General Medical Council on how patient information should be shared, and the NHS standard contract which sets out targets on handover delays. The responsibility for the implementation and oversight of protocols across England is at a local level. I understand that ESNEFT submitted evidence during the inquest which set out actions being taken locally to improve processes which you have considered and were content with. EEAST advise that in the East of England, all hospital A&Es have information systems to provide records of patients arriving by ambulance and that they are ensuring that ambulance patient care records are available as part of the assessment of patients who arrive at A&E by ambulance.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 1 · response
Published 4 September 2024

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

Implementation and oversight of clinical handover protocols across England are the responsibility of local organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the formal clinical handover of patients, there are a number of protocols that should be followed. This includes standards set out by the General Medical Council on how patient information should be shared, and the NHS standard contract which sets out targets on handover delays. The responsibility for the implementation and oversight of protocols across England is at a local level. I understand that ESNEFT submitted evidence during the inquest which set out actions being taken locally to improve processes which you have considered and were content with. EEAST advise that in the East of England, all hospital A&Es have information systems to provide records of patients arriving by ambulance and that they are ensuring that ambulance patient care records are available as part of the assessment of patients who arrive at A&E by ambulance.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 1 · response
Published 4 September 2024

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.2

  1. 1

    Return urgent and emergency care waiting times to the safe operational standards set out in the NHS Constitution.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 September 2024.
  2. 2

    Conduct and publish a full independent investigation into NHS performance to inform work on a 10-year NHS reform plan.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 September 2024.

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

Return urgent and emergency care waiting times to the safe operational standards set out in the NHS Constitution.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Turning to the concerns your report raises in relation to the pressures in hospital emergency departments. The Government accepts that urgent and emergency care services have been below the high standards that patients should expect in recent years. The NHS has been broken and it will take time to fix. However, we are determined to do so and have committed to returning urgent and emergency care waiting times to the safe operational waiting time standards set out in the NHS Constitution.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 2 · response
Published 4 September 2024

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

Conduct and publish a full independent investigation into NHS performance to inform work on a 10-year NHS reform plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Health Secretary ordered a full and independent investigation into NHS performance to provide a frank assessment of the issues and challenges it faces. The investigation’s findings, published on 12 September, will feed into the Government’s work on a 10-year plan to radically reform the NHS and build a health service that is fit for the future.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 2 · response
Published 4 September 2024

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