PFD report

Robert Cobbina · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jun 2019•Inner South 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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
4

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 raised2

  1. Failure to obtain riverfront coastguard location references during emergency calls
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
  2. Failure to promptly triage river emergencies and involve appropriate waterborne assets
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
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.3

  1. Action

    Review OP61 to remove ambiguity about directly informing the Maritime Coastguard Agency.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 August 2019.
  2. Action

    Remind all Emergency Operations Centre staff of the correct OP61 process for informing the Maritime Coastguard Agency.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 August 2019.
  3. Action

    Develop Multi-Agency Incident Transfer data transmission to speed transfer of incident details between emergency services.

    Stated by 999/112 Liaison Committee (999LCStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 August 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Existing location systems and backup methods are considered sufficient, so callers are not routinely required to provide additional landmarks.

    Stated by 999/112 Liaison Committee (999LCExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 riverfront coastguard location references during emergency calls

Wider context from the report

“1. That neither the initial caller, nor a passer-by who continued the call with the emergency control room, were prompted to request the coastguard or other waterborne assistance despite making clear that the emergency related to a person in the river. While it is understood that each service can subsequently involve other services as required, the concern inevitably arises that there was a potentially significant delay in involving the appropriate assets to locate Mr Cobbina which could have been avoided at the point at which the call was triaged and/or . 2. That neither the initial caller, nor the passer-by were prompted to identify existing signage placed along the riverfront providing a coastguard location reference to be provided in an emergency situation to enable a swift and precise arrival on scene in the absence of a normal address reference. It is acknowledged that this may have been an isolated instance but the concern remains that callers identifying an emergency related to someone in the river may not always be sufficiently interrogated, appropriately triaged, or be served with the appropriate assets as soon as may be possible, and that in other circumstances there is a risk that death will occur unless action is taken to ensure this is not systemic. ”

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 promptly triage river emergencies and involve appropriate waterborne assets

Wider context from the report

“1. That neither the initial caller, nor a passer-by who continued the call with the emergency control room, were prompted to request the coastguard or other waterborne assistance despite making clear that the emergency related to a person in the river. While it is understood that each service can subsequently involve other services as required, the concern inevitably arises that there was a potentially significant delay in involving the appropriate assets to locate Mr Cobbina which could have been avoided at the point at which the call was triaged and/or . 2. That neither the initial caller, nor the passer-by were prompted to identify existing signage placed along the riverfront providing a coastguard location reference to be provided in an emergency situation to enable a swift and precise arrival on scene in the absence of a normal address reference. It is acknowledged that this may have been an isolated instance but the concern remains that callers identifying an emergency related to someone in the river may not always be sufficiently interrogated, appropriately triaged, or be served with the appropriate assets as soon as may be possible, and that in other circumstances there is a risk that death will occur unless action is taken to ensure this is not systemic. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency call handling.

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

Review OP61 to remove ambiguity about directly informing the Maritime Coastguard Agency.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The dispatcher failed to follow this policy as they did not inform the coastguard directly. Upon review of this incident it has become apparent that the procedure within OP61 needs to be reviewed to eradicate any ambiguity and the individual dispatcher and all staff working within EOC will be reminded of the correct procedure for informing the MCA.”

Source location

2019-0210-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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

Remind all Emergency Operations Centre staff of the correct OP61 process for informing the Maritime Coastguard Agency.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The dispatcher failed to follow this policy as they did not inform the coastguard directly. Upon review of this incident it has become apparent that the procedure within OP61 needs to be reviewed to eradicate any ambiguity and the individual dispatcher and all staff working within EOC will be reminded of the correct procedure for informing the MCA.”

Source location

2019-0210-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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

Develop Multi-Agency Incident Transfer data transmission to speed transfer of incident details between emergency services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The current system of incident transfer between emergency services is being developed to utilise data transmission via a protocol called Multi-Agency Incident Transfer (MAIT), this allows emergency services to speed up transfer of incident details from one service to another.”

Source location

2019-0210-Responses
Page 6 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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 location systems and backup methods are considered sufficient, so callers are not routinely required to provide additional landmarks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to the concern that the callers in this case were not prompted for additional location information, as noted above, the emergency services have access to the EISEC and AML systems which can provide, especially in the case of AML for callers using most mobile phones, very accurate location information without the need for callers to provide it. It is therefore often not necessary for additional landmarks to be sought. Each emergency service does however have a variety of back up capabilities to identify location where the primary means has not provided sufficient accuracy. This ranges from simply asking the caller, through the use of landmarks such as described in the report,”

Source location

2019-0210-Responses
Page 5 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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 advice to seek nearby help, roads and landmarks is considered sufficient; mandatory coastguard-signage requests could delay dispatch.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The use of the coastguard signage along the River Thames was discussed at the meeting on 17 July 2019 and it was confirmed by MCA that coastguard signage is only specific to the Greenwich stretch of the Thames path. We have reflected upon whether we should make it mandatory for call handlers to request the coastguard signage from the caller. However, we have concluded that this may result in a delay in the dispatch of resources as it would be difficult to ensure that the information was only requested for the very limited area of the Greenwich stretch and might require callers to move some distance in order to locate the signage. It would be easier for callers to identify landmarks, roads etc in the vicinity instead.”

Source location

2019-0210-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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 emergency-service information-sharing arrangements are considered sufficient, so callers should not be required to alert multiple services themselves.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to the need to alert multiple services it is the view of the 999LTC that this should not be required of the caller; once a call is received by one of the emergency services then we believe that it would be reasonable for the public to expect that the emergency services will work together to ensure that the appropriate resources are identified to resolve the incident irrespective of where the first call is received. Given the context of an emergency, where callers may well be traumatised, it would also be inappropriate to rely on them to ensure that appropriate information is passed to every relevant service.”

Source location

2019-0210-Responses
Page 5 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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.1

  1. 1

    Work with the Maritime Coastguard Agency to achieve a more streamlined collaborative working agreement.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 August 2019.

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

Work with the Maritime Coastguard Agency to achieve a more streamlined collaborative working agreement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Before receiving this Regulation 28 Report a meeting was already diarised between the LAS and MCA which took place on 17 July 2019 and it was agreed that the LAS would remind all staff of the current process for informing MCA within OP61 and to work closely to achieve a more streamlined collaborative working agreement.”

Source location

2019-0210-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026