PFD report

Curt Falk · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Mar 2016•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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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.

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure of vaccination policy to include vaccination of males against the virus
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.4

  1. Action

    Issue advice supporting a targeted HPV vaccination programme for men who have sex with men attending GUM and HIV clinics.

    Stated by Joint Committee on Vaccination and ImmunisationStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 March 2016.
  2. Action

    Maintain review of vaccination-programme eligibility criteria.

    Stated by Joint Committee on Vaccination and ImmunisationStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 March 2016.
  3. Action

    Form an HPV subcommittee to assess vaccination of men who have sex with men and adolescent boys.

    Stated by Joint Committee on Vaccination and ImmunisationStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 March 2016.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    High coverage of girls’ HPV vaccination provides herd protection for boys, so extending routine vaccination to boys was not considered sufficiently beneficial.

    Stated by Joint Committee on Vaccination and ImmunisationExisting 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 of vaccination policy to include vaccination of males against the virus

Wider context from the report

“(1) The SCC from which Mr Falk suffered resulted from a viral infection, which is now potentially preventable through vaccination. This issue did not form part of the evidence heard at the inquest because it was not directly relevant to Mr Falk’s death. However, I am concerned that current vaccination policy does not include the vaccination of males against this virus. As such, there is a risk that future deaths could occur in men from the consequences of this infection. ”

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

Issue advice supporting a targeted HPV vaccination programme for men who have sex with men attending GUM and HIV clinics.

Verbatim wording from the response

“HPV vaccination programme to adolescent boys. It is anticipated that PHE will submit the work on the cost-effectiveness of extending the HPV vaccination programme to adolescent boys to JCVI by early 2017. Modelling work on vaccinating MSM was already underway as this was considered a priority because this is a group that receives very little indirect benefit from the girls programme. In November 2015 JCVI issued a statement advising that a targeted HPV vaccination programme for MSM aged up to 45 who attend GUM and HIV clinics should be undertaken subject to procurement of the vaccine and delivery of the programme at a cost-effective price. For more information I recommend you access the JCVI webpage which has the latest minutes and statements from JCVI meetings.”

Source location

2016-0083-Response-by-JCVI
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 2016

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

Maintain review of vaccination-programme eligibility criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The programme was introduced in 2008 following the advice of the JCVI which carried out a detailed review of evidence surrounding HPV vaccination including the cost effectiveness of routine and catch-up programmes. At that time JCVI did not recommend vaccination of boys because the evidence indicated vaccinating boys was unlikely to be cost-effective, as vaccine efficacy was high, and high coverage in girls would provide herd protection for boys, meaning that a programme which included boys would provide little additional benefit. The coverage of the HPV programme is high. In the last three years, coverage of the routine programme for the full three-dose course has been consistently above 86%. JCVI keeps the eligibility criteria of all vaccination programmes under review.”

Source location

2016-0083-Response-by-JCVI
Page 1 · response
Published 2 March 2016

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

Form an HPV subcommittee to assess vaccination of men who have sex with men and adolescent boys.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In October 2013 JCVI recommended a HPV sub-committee be formed to consider a number of issues including vaccinating men who have sex with men (MSM) and the potential extension of the programme to include adolescent boys, because of new and emerging evidence on the association of HPV vaccine types with non-cervical cancers. JCVI subsequently requested that modelling be undertaken by Public Health England (PHE) to re-examine the impact and cost-effectiveness of extending the”

Source location

2016-0083-Response-by-JCVI
Page 1 · response
Published 2 March 2016

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

Request modelling of extending HPV vaccination to adolescent boys.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In October 2013 JCVI recommended a HPV sub-committee be formed to consider a number of issues including vaccinating men who have sex with men (MSM) and the potential extension of the programme to include adolescent boys, because of new and emerging evidence on the association of HPV vaccine types with non-cervical cancers. JCVI subsequently requested that modelling be undertaken by Public Health England (PHE) to re-examine the impact and cost-effectiveness of extending the”

Source location

2016-0083-Response-by-JCVI
Page 1 · response
Published 2 March 2016

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

High coverage of girls’ HPV vaccination provides herd protection for boys, so extending routine vaccination to boys was not considered sufficiently beneficial.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The programme was introduced in 2008 following the advice of the JCVI which carried out a detailed review of evidence surrounding HPV vaccination including the cost effectiveness of routine and catch-up programmes. At that time JCVI did not recommend vaccination of boys because the evidence indicated vaccinating boys was unlikely to be cost-effective, as vaccine efficacy was high, and high coverage in girls would provide herd protection for boys, meaning that a programme which included boys would provide little additional benefit. The coverage of the HPV programme is high. In the last three years, coverage of the routine programme for the full three-dose course has been consistently above 86%. JCVI keeps the eligibility criteria of all vaccination programmes under review.”

Source location

2016-0083-Response-by-JCVI
Page 1 · response
Published 2 March 2016

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

    Attach the committee code of practice and provide links to relevant HPV vaccination documents.

    Stated by Joint Committee on Vaccination and ImmunisationStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 March 2016.

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

Attach the committee code of practice and provide links to relevant HPV vaccination documents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have attached the JCVI code of practice which gives details about the Committee and provided links below to the relevant JCVI documents concerning the subject of HPV vaccination.”

Source location

2016-0083-Response-by-JCVI
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026