PFD report

Dr Kenneth Wilson CULLY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Apr 2026•East Riding and Hull

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised1

  1. Insufficient questioning to identify uncontrolled bleeding
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable NHS 111 clinical triage algorithms and systems
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.2

  1. Position

    NHS Pathways does identify serious and uncontrolled bleeding through questions about blood loss, bleeding characteristics and soaked dressings.

    Stated by NHS EnglandDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Insufficient questioning to identify uncontrolled bleeding

Wider context from the report

“In the new NHS Pathway system there appeared to be an insufficiency in the questions to correctly identify the seriousness of an uncontrolled bleed (there is no question regarding whether the bleed is controlled or not). This could lead to the categorisation of the call being incorrect and a delay in treating a catastrophic event needing immediate attention. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable NHS 111 clinical triage algorithms and systems.

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

NHS Pathways does identify serious and uncontrolled bleeding through questions about blood loss, bleeding characteristics and soaked dressings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Immediate establishment of whether there is, or has been, any bleeding present, even if it has stopped at the time of the call;”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 30 June 2026

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 NHS Pathways triage arrangements are considered sufficient because identified uncontrolled bleeding produces the same Category 2 ambulance outcome as the other system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From the information provided regarding Dr Cully, I would wish to convey to you that the serious nature of such bleeding would have been dealt with at least as well as in the other system. And whilst the exact wording between the two systems differs, NHS Pathways does identify volumes of blood lost, nature of bleeding and picks up signs of catastrophic bleeding such as pooling or soaking through dressings, rather than asking a clinical judgement to be made by the caller as to whether bleeding is uncontrollable or dangerous. When uncontrolled bleeding is identified, as is most likely in a case presenting with the same or similar symptoms, the recommended disposition in line with up-to-date national clinical guidance is for a Category 2 ambulance for Major Blood Loss.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · response
Published 30 June 2026

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

    Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group to share learning nationally and regionally.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 June 2026.
  2. 2

    Liaise with Yorkshire Ambulance Service to confirm and discuss learning from the case.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 June 2026.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    AMPDS falls outside NHS England’s management and oversight, so it cannot comment on or undertake responsive work concerning that system.

    Stated by NHS EnglandOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group to share learning nationally and regionally.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Dr Cully, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · response
Published 30 June 2026

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

Liaise with Yorkshire Ambulance Service to confirm and discuss learning from the case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England is in close contact with providers using the NHS Pathways system and will liaise with Yorkshire Ambulance Service to confirm/discuss any learnings from this case.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · response
Published 30 June 2026

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

AMPDS falls outside NHS England’s management and oversight, so it cannot comment on or undertake responsive work concerning that system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England does not manage or oversee AMPDS and we are therefore unable to provide comment on their system.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 30 June 2026

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