PFD report

Elsie Yvonne Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Dec 2020•Black Country

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
9

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised9

  1. Inaccurate wording in discharge notices about GP referral as an alternative to hospital admission
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  2. Failure to record hospital advice and the person's understanding of that advice
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably record information and advice given to patients
  3. Failure to contact the GP or a family member when a patient living alone requires follow-up
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably escalate patient safety concerns to primary 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

    Complete refresher training for crew members on documentation standards, checking EPR entries and obtaining signatures for non-conveyance cases.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 January 2021.

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

  1. Position

    The discharge form advised contacting or attending the GP; it did not indicate that the patient had been referred.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Inaccurate wording in discharge notices about GP referral as an alternative to hospital admission

Wider context from the report

“(5) The discharge notice left by paramedics contained her observations only and the wording suggested she had been referred to her GP as an alternative to a hospital admission; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 record hospital advice and the person's understanding of that advice

Wider context from the report

“(2) The EPR did not record that the deceased had been advised to go to hospital nor that she understood any such advice and she was not asked to sign a disclaimer; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably record information and advice given to patients.

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 contact the GP or a family member when a patient living alone requires follow-up

Wider context from the report

“(6) The deceased lived alone and suffered with COPD and IHD. No attempt was made to contact the GP of the deceased or a family member despite the fact it was known that the deceased lived alone (it was noted in the EPR). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably escalate patient safety concerns to primary care.

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 provide information about symptoms indicating deterioration

Wider context from the report

“(3) There was no information left by the attending paramedic crew to reflect the decision of the deceased to decline admission or the advice given by paramedics. The family of the deceased were not present during the consultation and as a consequence they did not know what symptoms to look out for which might suggestion a deterioration in the condition of the deceased; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety-netting advice for patients and carers.

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 include clinically relevant information in discharge notices

Wider context from the report

“(5) The discharge notice left by paramedics contained her observations only and the wording suggested she had been referred to her GP as an alternative to a hospital admission; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 leave information recording the admission decision and paramedic advice

Wider context from the report

“(3) There was no information left by the attending paramedic crew to reflect the decision of the deceased to decline admission or the advice given by paramedics. The family of the deceased were not present during the consultation and as a consequence they did not know what symptoms to look out for which might suggestion a deterioration in the condition of the deceased; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable handover of care information and responsibility.

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 record a decision to decline hospital admission in the EPR

Wider context from the report

“(1) The attending paramedic gave evidence at the inquest that on 15/9/20 the deceased had declined a hospital admission against advice due to concerns about Covid-19. This was not recorded in the EPR and the first time the family became aware of this was when a statement was received from the paramedic 2 days before inquest; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 obtain a disclaimer when hospital admission is declined

Wider context from the report

“(2) The EPR did not record that the deceased had been advised to go to hospital nor that she understood any such advice and she was not asked to sign a disclaimer; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 document the outcome of the consultation

Wider context from the report

“(4) There was no note left by the attending paramedic crew detailing the outcome of the consultation; ”

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

Complete refresher training for crew members on documentation standards, checking EPR entries and obtaining signatures for non-conveyance cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response During the meeting with the paramedic, he stated the patient was advised to attend hospital but refused, this refusal was not documented on the EPR. The paramedic also made admissions that he did not thoroughly check the EPR which the student paramedic had completed prior to him signing it. The importance of the EPR and the information contained in it was reiterated to the paramedic. Both crew members have attended further training which covered the Trusts’ expected standard of completing and checking documentation.”

Source location

2020-0281-Response-from-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-REDACTED
Page 1 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

The discharge form advised contacting or attending the GP; it did not indicate that the patient had been referred.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response The box ticked on the discharge form states that the patient had been advised to contact or attend her GP practice. If a referral had been made on behalf of the patient one of the boxes at the top of the form would have been ticked.”

Source location

2020-0281-Response-from-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-REDACTED
Page 2 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

A discharge sheet provided safety-netting information, so it was not correct that no relevant information or consultation outcome was left.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response A discharge sheet was left with the patient, which detailed that the patient was to contact the GP or in the case of an emergency to call 999/111. The paramedic has confirmed that there was no family present but there was neighbour in attendance throughout the whole consultation. The neighbour was shown the bruise on the patient ribs and she informed the crew that she would stay with the patient for some time to keep an eye on her.”

Source location

2020-0281-Response-from-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-REDACTED
Page 2 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

    Remind Black Country local management of the importance of providing statements to the coroner’s office promptly.

    Stated by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 January 2021.

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 Black Country local management of the importance of providing statements to the coroner’s office promptly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We would like to apologise for the delay you experienced in receiving the statement. The local management team for the Black Country have been reminded of the importance of providing statements for your office in a timely manner.”

Source location

2020-0281-Response-from-West-Midlands-Ambulance-Service-REDACTED
Page 1 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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