PFD report

John Stephen England · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 May 2025•Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

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
3

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. Failure of the ambulance triage system to distinguish abdominal complaints and assign timely hospital-conveyance dispositions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triagePart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency access to hospital care
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

    Discuss the abdominal pain case within the AMPDS clinical coding subgroup with PDC to identify opportunities to improve assessment and differentiation of surgical emergencies.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 May 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Individual ambulance services are responsible for processes and timescales enabling timely clinical navigation and validation of calls requiring further assessment.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects 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 of the ambulance triage system to distinguish abdominal complaints and assign timely hospital-conveyance dispositions

Wider context from the report

“1) At the time of the initial call to South West Ambulance Service Trust, Mr England reported that he thought he had a ‘twisted bowel.’ This had happened to him on five previous occasions in Gloucester when medical intervention had been required four times to decompress a sigmoid volvulus. The call handler, using the MDPS system, reached a Category 5 disposition. Two experts who gave evidence at inquest, ████████, a Consultant Surgeon, and ████████, a Consultant Gastroenterologist, both felt Mr England needed to be conveyed to hospital within two hours which I believe would have required a Category 3 disposition. As both the fact of a delay and its causative relevance were admitted by the Trust, the detail of the call and the questions asked to reach a disposition were not enquired into at inquest. Evidence was heard, however, that upon audit it was felt the call handler had achieved a high degree of compliance with expected standards. This raises a concern whether the system is sufficiently nuanced to distinguish between different types of abdominal complaints and to ensure that those who need to be recognised as a surgical emergency receive a disposition resulting in a patient being conveyed to hospital within an appropriate timeframe. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage; Unreliable emergency access to hospital care.

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

Discuss the abdominal pain case within the AMPDS clinical coding subgroup with PDC to identify opportunities to improve assessment and differentiation of surgical emergencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To respond directly to the Coroner’s concerns on abdominal pain, NHS England has obtained the specific details of this case from SWASFT, which will be discussed within the NHS England AMPDS clinical coding sub-group, in collaboration with PDC, to determine if there are opportunities to improve the assessment and differentiation of abdominal pain presentations within the AMPDS triage system. NHS England has additionally shared the Coroner’s concerns with PDC, who have outlined that they welcome the opportunity to review any dispatch-specific, non-visual interrogation suggestions to further improve the discovery of surgical emergencies associated with the complaint of abdominal pain.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 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

Individual ambulance services are responsible for processes and timescales enabling timely clinical navigation and validation of calls requiring further assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During this clinical assessment, the patient’s current condition should be explored as well as considering the past medical history to be able to determine if an ambulance response is required. At the conclusion of the clinical assessment, additional information can be provided to the clinician to the caller about what actions to take if the patient’s condition appears to be worsening or there are any other concerns. Individual ambulance services should have appropriate processes in place to facilitate the timely clinical navigation and validation of all calls that require further clinical assessment. It is critical that services consider their clinical navigation and validation timescales and processes in full to prevent patients from experiencing delays in receiving clinical assessment to identify the appropriate outcome required to meet their clinical needs.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 20 May 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

Telephone triage cannot make differential diagnoses requiring visual, historical and diagnostic information unavailable during the call.

Verbatim wording from the response

“symptoms of severe blood loss, such as a decreased level of consciousness, fainting or near fainting, or an ash-grey colour, are prioritised. Moreover, patients within a common cardiac age range (patients aged 35 years and older) are further assessed and coded based on their age and the location of the pain. However, whilst the AMPDS system’s Abdominal Pain Protocol is able to identify and prioritise based on priority symptoms, triage systems are not designed to make differential diagnoses that would require additional visual, historic and diagnostic information that cannot be provided via telephone triage.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 20 May 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

Priority Dispatch Corp manages AMPDS protocols and questions, including responsibility for making changes to the commercial international system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• As regards to SWASFT being users of the AMPDS system, the Priority Dispatch Corp (PDC) is responsible for and manages the commercial international AMPDS system, including making any changes to the protocols and questions asked. This may be on the basis of a recommendation from NHS England’s ECPAG, or as part of PDC’s own improvement and triage development work, which draws on its international user base.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 2025

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 all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across NHS England nationally and regionally.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 May 2025.
  2. 2

    Share the Coroner’s abdominal pain triage concerns with Priority Dispatch Corp.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 May 2025.

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 all Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across NHS England 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 John, 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 3 · response
Published 20 May 2025

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

Share the Coroner’s abdominal pain triage concerns with Priority Dispatch Corp.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To respond directly to the Coroner’s concerns on abdominal pain, NHS England has obtained the specific details of this case from SWASFT, which will be discussed within the NHS England AMPDS clinical coding sub-group, in collaboration with PDC, to determine if there are opportunities to improve the assessment and differentiation of abdominal pain presentations within the AMPDS triage system. NHS England has additionally shared the Coroner’s concerns with PDC, who have outlined that they welcome the opportunity to review any dispatch-specific, non-visual interrogation suggestions to further improve the discovery of surgical emergencies associated with the complaint of abdominal pain.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 20 May 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