PFD report

Henry Michael WILLEMS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Oct 2024•Worcestershire

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
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 raised2

  1. Delays in ambulance vehicles being released from hospitals
  2. Failure to meet applicable Category 2 ambulance response times
    Part of recurring concern: Delays in ambulance attendance
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

    Improve hospital flow, reduce delayed discharges, and increase urgent and emergency care capacity.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 October 2024.
  2. Action

    Return urgent and emergency care operations to the safe waiting-time 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 24 October 2024.

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 ambulance vehicles being released from hospitals

Wider context from the report

“1) In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence from the Patient Safety Learning Lead for West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust ( WMAS ), who told me: (a) Mr. Willems’ case was correctly assigned a Category 2 disposition, for which the mean response time is 18 minutes, and the 90ᵗʰ percentile response time is 40 minutes; (b) Those response times were not met, as Mr. Willems was not reached by paramedics until some 2 hours 18 minutes after the “clock start” time for his case; (c) The Trust was unable to meet the applicable mean and 90ᵗʰ percentile response times, because at the time of these events, it was operating at Emergency and Urgent Service Level 4 (the highest level which can be applied ). The Trust had over 200 outstanding incidents, of which 31 were other Category 2 cases, and 50% of their vehicles were being delayed at hospitals within the region for anything between 189 minutes and 441 minutes. 2) I heard expert evidence that Mr. Willems would probably have survived this episode, and would not have died when he did, had paramedics been able to attend his home address within the applicable 18 minute mean response time. ”

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

Failure to meet applicable Category 2 ambulance response times

Wider context from the report

“1) In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence from the Patient Safety Learning Lead for West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust ( WMAS ), who told me: (a) Mr. Willems’ case was correctly assigned a Category 2 disposition, for which the mean response time is 18 minutes, and the 90ᵗʰ percentile response time is 40 minutes; (b) Those response times were not met, as Mr. Willems was not reached by paramedics until some 2 hours 18 minutes after the “clock start” time for his case; (c) The Trust was unable to meet the applicable mean and 90ᵗʰ percentile response times, because at the time of these events, it was operating at Emergency and Urgent Service Level 4 (the highest level which can be applied ). The Trust had over 200 outstanding incidents, of which 31 were other Category 2 cases, and 50% of their vehicles were being delayed at hospitals within the region for anything between 189 minutes and 441 minutes. 2) I heard expert evidence that Mr. Willems would probably have survived this episode, and would not have died when he did, had paramedics been able to attend his home address within the applicable 18 minute mean response time. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in ambulance attendance.

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

Improve hospital flow, reduce delayed discharges, and increase urgent and emergency care capacity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the short-term, a range of action is being taken by the NHS this year to improve urgent and emergency care performance, including by maintaining capacity gains in acute hospital beds and ambulance hours on the road achieved in 2023-24, increasing the productivity of acute and non-acute services across bedded and non-bedded capacity, and directing patients to more appropriate services in the community where these can better meet their needs. This government is also working to improve hospital flow to make sure people do not spend longer than necessary in hospital and reduce delayed discharges, increasing urgent and emergency care capacity.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 2 · response
Published 24 October 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

Return urgent and emergency care operations to the safe waiting-time standards set out in the NHS Constitution.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At a national level, this government is committed to returning to the safe operational waiting time standards set out in the NHS Constitution. In doing so we will be honest about the challenges facing the health service and serious about tackling them. The Health Secretary ordered an independent investigation of NHS performance to provide an assessment of the issues and challenges it faces. This reported on 12th September 2024 and the investigation’s findings 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 24 October 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

    Develop a 10-year plan to reform the NHS using the independent investigation’s findings.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 October 2024.
  2. 2

    Order and complete an independent investigation assessing NHS performance issues and challenges.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 October 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

Develop a 10-year plan to reform the NHS using the independent investigation’s findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At a national level, this government is committed to returning to the safe operational waiting time standards set out in the NHS Constitution. In doing so we will be honest about the challenges facing the health service and serious about tackling them. The Health Secretary ordered an independent investigation of NHS performance to provide an assessment of the issues and challenges it faces. This reported on 12th September 2024 and the investigation’s findings 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 24 October 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

Order and complete an independent investigation assessing NHS performance issues and challenges.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At a national level, this government is committed to returning to the safe operational waiting time standards set out in the NHS Constitution. In doing so we will be honest about the challenges facing the health service and serious about tackling them. The Health Secretary ordered an independent investigation of NHS performance to provide an assessment of the issues and challenges it faces. This reported on 12th September 2024 and the investigation’s findings 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 24 October 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