PFD report

Alfie Lydon · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Jul 2025•Inner North 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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 maintain contemporaneous, accurate and immediately available documentation of external calls between community and hospital teams
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated carePart of recurring concern: Unsafe coordination of shared 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

    Raise Alfie’s case with Neonatal Operational Delivery Networks and Regional maternity teams.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 July 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Direct control over how healthcare staff record clinical communications lies outside the organisation’s authority as a membership body.

    Stated by Royal College of Paediatrics and Child HealthOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 maintain contemporaneous, accurate and immediately available documentation of external calls between community and hospital teams

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard evidence that the vast majority of hospital Trusts do not have processes in place to document external calls from midwives to hospital teams. Concerns were raised that this can result in a lack of continuity and escalation of care, particularly with regards to parental concerns. The hospital Trust involved has taken steps to document such calls now but this is undertaken on paper, which is subsequently uploaded to the hospital records. They plan to implement an electronic solution but not for some time. There is a concern that a lack of contemporaneous, accurate and immediately available documentation of discussions between community and hospital teams could result in deaths in future similar circumstances. Given that this is not simply a local issue, this concern warrants raising at a national level. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unsafe coordination of shared 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

Raise Alfie’s case with Neonatal Operational Delivery Networks and Regional maternity teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Alfie’s case will be raised with the Neonatal Operational Delivery Networks and Regional maternity teams, with the expectation that they subsequently cascade to all maternity and neonatal units the importance of documenting such consultations.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 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

Direct control over how healthcare staff record clinical communications lies outside the organisation’s authority as a membership body.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a membership organisation we have no direct control over the mechanism(s) by which healthcare staff record their clinical communications. Our sphere of influence lies in nudging change at national level. Currently, there is a lack of legislation and guidance on exactly what information, when and how it should be shared between agencies. In practice, our members (paediatricians) have reported difficulties in exchanging information, which may be a result of poor communication between professionals and/or a lack of interoperable information systems available to effectively share information. Use of the NHS number as a single unique identifier for children will overcome these barriers and enable information to be shared more easily between agencies and services.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 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

Trusts are responsible for ensuring effective recording and access processes where digital infrastructure is unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to documenting communication between community midwives and staff working on acute sites, this would be a standard expectation in the provision of care for both those making and those receiving the calls. Both staff groups will typically utilise the relevant Trust’s Electronic Patient Record (EPR) system for either community midwifery services or hospital maternity / neonatal services, depending on which staff groups on the acute site are involved. This should allow them to record information directly within the patient’s record, which should be accessible to all system users regardless of setting. This is on the provision that the maternity service has the necessary digital infrastructure, including capabilities for offline working when in the community.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 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.5

  1. 1

    Continue campaigning nationally for children’s NHS numbers to enable information sharing across agencies and services.

    Stated by Royal College of Paediatrics and Child HealthStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  2. 2

    Support rollout of Martha’s Rule and engage with NHS England as pilot data emerge.

    Stated by Royal College of Paediatrics and Child HealthStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  3. 3

    Share learning and insights from Prevention of Future Deaths reports across the NHS nationally and regionally.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  4. 4

    Engage the East of England Regional Chief Midwife about the concerns raised in the Report.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 2025.
  5. 5

    Discuss all received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 July 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

Continue campaigning nationally for children’s NHS numbers to enable information sharing across agencies and services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a membership organisation we have no direct control over the mechanism(s) by which healthcare staff record their clinical communications. Our sphere of influence lies in nudging change at national level. Currently, there is a lack of legislation and guidance on exactly what information, when and how it should be shared between agencies. In practice, our members (paediatricians) have reported difficulties in exchanging information, which may be a result of poor communication between professionals and/or a lack of interoperable information systems available to effectively share information. Use of the NHS number as a single unique identifier for children will overcome these barriers and enable information to be shared more easily between agencies and services.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 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

Support rollout of Martha’s Rule and engage with NHS England as pilot data emerge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We agree with your observation and concern that a lack of record keeping can lead to a lack of continuity and escalation of care, particularly with regards to parental concerns. RCPCH are actively supporting the role out of Martha’s Rule, an inpatient safety initiative currently being piloted in England which aims to empower all staff, patients and their families to seek an independent medical review if they feel their concerns about a patient’s care are not being adequately addressed. The rule is designed to give families the ability to directly”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Page 1 · response
Published 17 July 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 learning and insights from Prevention of Future Deaths reports across the NHS 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 Alfie, 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 2 · response
Published 17 July 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

Engage the East of England Regional Chief Midwife about the concerns raised in the Report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England’s National teams have also engaged with the East of England’s Regional Chief Midwife on the concerns raised in your Report. They advise that:”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 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

Discuss all received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group.

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 Alfie, 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 2 · response
Published 17 July 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026