PFD report

Hugo Carlos · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Feb 2023•Berkshire

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

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 raised1

  1. Failure of the practice follow-up system to ensure investigations are completed at the correct time
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-upPart of recurring concern: Failure to ensure scheduled investigations are followed up
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 the practice follow-up system to ensure investigations are completed at the correct time

Wider context from the report

“A partner in the Deceased’s general practice gave evidence to the Inquest that the practice uses the EMIS system, and that, unlike SystemOne, the system does not have a scheduled task feature which would allow the GP to create an alert on a patient’s record to flag up when a task is due at a future date – eg an alert to book a follow up scan in one year. I have been informed that EMIS does allow a future entry into a patient’s record (a diary date), but this must be for a specific clinical code and the only way to see that there is a due diary date entry is to access the patient’s record and view the summary page or diary section. Unless the GP has reason to inspect the patient’s clinical record and examine the summary or diary pages there is no way of being alerted that a new task needs to be completed for that patient. Further, it is not possible to add a pop-up linked diary date entry for a specific task (such as a scan) outside the EMIS determined list. This creates a situation where the responsibility for ensuring that follow up investigations are undertaken at the correct time is placed onto the patient, and the patient will have to contact the GP to request follow-up. In this case the Deceased was diligent in contacting his GP surgery to request repeat scans, but I consider that unless some action is taken there is a continuing risk of patients not contacting the GP to make a request for follow-up and therefore becoming lost to necessary follow-up. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up; Failure to ensure scheduled investigations are followed up.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.