PFD report

William Francis Driscoll · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Dec 2015•Birmingham and Solihull

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 follow up a GP’s identification of a relevant consultant
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up
  2. Limited investigation into health conditions declared on form POLN3
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably assess driver fitness and driving safety
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 follow up a GP’s identification of a relevant consultant

Wider context from the report

“████████ gave evidence that if he had been aware of the incident in September 2014 he would have carried out further investigations revealing the epilepsy that was ultimately diagnosed in August 2015 and thus preventing ████████ from driving before the collision with the deceased. It appears that there are serious deficiencies in the medical assessment process as regards the limited investigation into the health conditions on the form POLN3 and/or in not following up the GP’s identification of a ‘Relevant Consultant’. As a consequence drivers may be permitted to drive who have not been adequately assessed as fit to do so. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up.

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

Limited investigation into health conditions declared on form POLN3

Wider context from the report

“████████ gave evidence that if he had been aware of the incident in September 2014 he would have carried out further investigations revealing the epilepsy that was ultimately diagnosed in August 2015 and thus preventing ████████ from driving before the collision with the deceased. It appears that there are serious deficiencies in the medical assessment process as regards the limited investigation into the health conditions on the form POLN3 and/or in not following up the GP’s identification of a ‘Relevant Consultant’. As a consequence drivers may be permitted to drive who have not been adequately assessed as fit to do so. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably assess driver fitness and driving safety.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.