Gregor Patrick Edward Lynn · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Dec 2023•Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

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 ensure access to histological analysis for privately funded procedures without a separate cost barrier

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. NHS England

    Discuss all Regulation 28 reports through the national working group and share preventable-death learning across NHS regions.

  2. NHS Central East Integrated Care Board

    Review current and former benign skin lesion referral policies for relevant safety issues.

  3. NHS Central East Integrated Care Board

    Remind commissioned primary-care services to routinely send excised skin lesions for histological analysis.

  4. NHS Central East Integrated Care Board

    Signpost NHS GPs across the integrated care system to guidance on detecting skin cancers.

  5. NHS Central East Integrated Care Board

    Remind NHS GPs to refer uncertain or potentially malignant skin lesions appropriately instead of using the benign skin policy.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Department of Health and Social Care

    Existing CQC and GMC regulation and professional-conduct routes address healthcare safety and concerns about individual doctors.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. Department of Health and Social Care

    Independent sector providers determine services and fees for self-funding patients when services are outside NHS contracts.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. NHS England

    The Care Quality Commission is responsible for ensuring quality and safety standards in private hospitals and clinics.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  4. NHS England

    NHS England and NHS commissioners cannot influence how private care is delivered.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  5. NHS Central East Integrated Care Board

    Private providers’ pricing and histology optionality for non-NHS-funded treatment are outside the respondent’s influence.

    Outside 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 ensure access to histological analysis for privately funded procedures without a separate cost barrier

Wider context from the report

“• I was not able to conclude that, had the sample been sent for analysis in March 2019, any sign of melanoma would have been detected. Nevertheless, it is of concern that the barrier to undergoing a complete procedure, including histological analysis, appears to be one of cost. Anecdotal evidence received at inquest from treating clinicians was that the further costs associated with histological or other review, which on the NHS would be routinely included within the procedure at no charge to the patient, was a common disincentive to patients who would regularly opt not to have the further tests carried out. • While it is acknowledged that there have to be criteria for routine and non-emergency procedures to be conducted on the NHS, my concern relates to the disparity in what is included within the treatment when undertaken privately (where histological analysis is a separate and additional cost) and what is routinely included as part of NHS treatment. • It therefore seems to me that there is a risk of future deaths if patients not meeting the NHS referral criteria, who have to pay for procedures to be carried out privately, opt on cost grounds not to have the histological analysis which would otherwise be provided on the NHS at no charge, as it is well-established fact that earlier detection and treatment is crucial in minimising the risks of developing metastatic cancers including melanoma. ”

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

Discuss all Regulation 28 reports through the national working group and share preventable-death learning across NHS regions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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

Review current and former benign skin lesion referral policies for relevant safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, to ensure that we do all we can to learn from Mr Lynn’s death and improve care for future patients we have used the information you provided to consider other related safety aspects.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Page 1 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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

Remind commissioned primary-care services to routinely send excised skin lesions for histological analysis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of receiving your Regulation 28 Notice we are taking the following actions:”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Page 2 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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

Signpost NHS GPs across the integrated care system to guidance on detecting skin cancers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of receiving your Regulation 28 Notice we are taking the following actions:”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Page 2 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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

Remind NHS GPs to refer uncertain or potentially malignant skin lesions appropriately instead of using the benign skin policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of receiving your Regulation 28 Notice we are taking the following actions:”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Page 2 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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

Existing CQC and GMC regulation and professional-conduct routes address healthcare safety and concerns about individual doctors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All providers of healthcare are regulated by the Care Quality Commission and follow a set of fundamental standards of safety and quality, below which care should never fall. In addition, doctors in the UK are regulated by the General Medical Council (GMC), who are responsible for ensuring that medical professionals have the necessary skills and knowledge to join the medical register. All doctors must register with the GMC, hold a licence to practice, and meet the regulator’s expected standards, including the ‘Good medical practice’ standards, which states that doctors “must provide a good standard of practice and care… (and) refer a patient to suitably qualified practitioner when this serves their needs.” There are also existing routes to raise concerns regarding the professional conduct or behaviour of individual doctors through the GMC - Concerns about doctors - GMC (gmc-uk.org).”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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

Independent sector providers determine services and fees for self-funding patients when services are outside NHS contracts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to your concern about charging for additional activities by independent sector providers, it is reasonable that they should be able to charge for services which are not provided under contracts with the NHS. Ultimately, it is for independent sector”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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 Care Quality Commission is responsible for ensuring quality and safety standards in private hospitals and clinics.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you have outlined in your Report, the GP who undertook the excision in this case was doing so on a private patient basis. NHS England and NHS commissioners are not able to influence how private care is delivered to patients. I note that you have also sent your Report to the Department of Health and Social Care. You may also wish to refer this case to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) who are responsible for ensuring that standards of quality and safety are upheld within private hospitals and clinics.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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

NHS England and NHS commissioners cannot influence how private care is delivered.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you have outlined in your Report, the GP who undertook the excision in this case was doing so on a private patient basis. NHS England and NHS commissioners are not able to influence how private care is delivered to patients. I note that you have also sent your Report to the Department of Health and Social Care. You may also wish to refer this case to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) who are responsible for ensuring that standards of quality and safety are upheld within private hospitals and clinics.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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

Private providers’ pricing and histology optionality for non-NHS-funded treatment are outside the respondent’s influence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Unfortunately, NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Integrated Care Board has no influence over the pricing structure, or the optionality of histology, offered by private providers that deliver non-NHS funded treatment within our geographical area.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Page 1 · response
Published 28 December 2023

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026