PFD report

Edward Thomas WILSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Jun 2025•Cheshire

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
1

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 to account for relevant heart failure history when deciding whether to administer salbutamol nebulisers
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.1

  1. Action

    Complete a retrospective Specialist Review of the treatment and care provided to the patient.

    Stated by North West Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Any risk arising from these national guidelines should be addressed to JRCALC rather than the ambulance service.

    Stated by North West Ambulance Service NHS TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 account for relevant heart failure history when deciding whether to administer salbutamol nebulisers

Wider context from the report

“The attending paramedics did not take the significant history of heart failure into account when making the decision to administer the salbutamol nebulisers which had a direct impact on the outcome by the lowering of Mr Wilson's blood pressure. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Complete a retrospective Specialist Review of the treatment and care provided to the patient.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Upon receipt of the Regulation 28 report a decision was made to undertake a retrospective Specialist Review into the treatment and care provided to Mr Wilson. NWAS was not aware of any concerns regarding Mr Wilson’s care prior to the conclusion of the inquest, and the witness statements provided did not highlight any failures in practice or procedure. NWAS was not present or represented at the inquest and did not have Interested Person status to the proceedings.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 1 · response
Published 17 June 2025

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

Any risk arising from these national guidelines should be addressed to JRCALC rather than the ambulance service.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Specialist Review has concluded that the treatment afforded to Mr Wilson adhered wholly to the national guidelines produced by JRCALC and I hope this addresses the concerns you have raised. There were no contraindications to the use of salbutamol despite Mr Wilson’s medical history. Therefore, any risk resulting from adherence to these guidelines is born at a national scale and should be directed to JRCALC directly.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2025

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

Salbutamol treatment was indicated, appropriate and guideline-compliant; there were no contraindications despite the patient’s medical history.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Specialist Review concludes that Salbutamol would have been indicated for Mr Wilson as he was suffering with expiratory wheeze associated with a lower airway cause, presumed to be infection. There was no absolute contraindication for using Salbutamol.”

Source location

Response from North West Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2025

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