PFD report

Patricia Mercieca · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Jul 2016•Inner West London

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

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 raised6

  1. Insufficient training for escalating concerns after no response from an emergency call system user
  2. Failure to raise immediate concerns with appropriate agencies after no response from an emergency call system user
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to escalate welfare concerns after unsuccessful contactPart of recurring concern: Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached
  3. Lack of refresher training for contacting resident managers after Westminster residents' medical emergency calls
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate staff training for emergency response
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

Insufficient training for escalating concerns after no response from an emergency call system user

Wider context from the report

“(4) That call handlers be trained such that if they get no response when contacting a person who has contacted them and that person is a user of the emergency call system, then immediate concerns should be raised with the appropriate agencies for example the LAS and resident scheme manager. ”

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 raise immediate concerns with appropriate agencies after no response from an emergency call system user

Wider context from the report

“(4) That call handlers be trained such that if they get no response when contacting a person who has contacted them and that person is a user of the emergency call system, then immediate concerns should be raised with the appropriate agencies for example the LAS and resident scheme manager. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate welfare concerns after unsuccessful contact; Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached.

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 refresher training for contacting resident managers after Westminster residents' medical emergency calls

Wider context from the report

“(1) That the call handlers need to be refresher trained in relation to contacting resident managers for Westminster residents following a medical emergency call. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate staff training for emergency response.

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 contact the manager for emergency callers where a manager is available

Wider context from the report

“(2) That wherever there is a person contacting them in an emergency where there is a manager, that manager should be contacted whatever authority covers the person contacting the call handler. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency call handling.

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 obtain further information or reassess when directed by emergency services or relevant professionals

Wider context from the report

“(3) That if a call handler is directed by emergency services such as the LAS, or other relevant professionals such as a doctor to obtain further information or reassess then they should do so and pass any information so gained back to the agency or professional that requested it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency call handling.

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 pass requested further information back to the requesting agency or professional

Wider context from the report

“(3) That if a call handler is directed by emergency services such as the LAS, or other relevant professionals such as a doctor to obtain further information or reassess then they should do so and pass any information so gained back to the agency or professional that requested it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unsafe emergency call handling.

Open source report

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 999 caller questions did not prevent different triage; only reporting lost contact and non-response would have changed the call priority.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 999 caller questions did not prevent different triage; only reporting lost contact and non-response would have changed the call priority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am satisfied that there are no changes to the questions asked of 999 callers that would have enabled the LAS to triage the call differently aside from the update that contact with the patient had been lost and she was not responding. I am hopeful however, that the measures taken by Tunstall to address the Coroner’s concerns will help prevent future deaths.”

Source location

2016-0260-Response-by-London-Ambulance-Service
Page 2 · response
Published 19 July 2016

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