PFD report

Terrence FROST · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Mar 2026•Suffolk

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 of GPs to promptly communicate with the Medical Assessment Unit or Accident and Emergency department
    Part of recurring concern: Ineffective communication during medical emergencies
  2. Failure of internal hospital telephone calls to reach the Medical Assessment Unit
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.3

  1. Action

    Reiterate to bleep holders the importance of answering calls promptly during Medicine Divisional staff meetings.

    Stated by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2026.
  2. Action

    Restrict the Medical Assessment Unit bleep to external calls, increasing capacity for timely responses and reducing call queues.

    Stated by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2026.
  3. Action

    Implement secure electronic patient-record messaging to provide an alternative internal communication route for Medical Assessment Unit users.

    Stated by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 March 2026.

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

  1. Position

    Existing electronic messaging, bleep arrangements and ambulance pre-alert processes are considered an adequate response to communication concerns.

    Stated by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation TrustExisting 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 GPs to promptly communicate with the Medical Assessment Unit or Accident and Emergency department

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was heard that prior to his attendance in the Accident and Emergency department on the 16th July 2024, Terrence had been seen at home by a paramedic from his surgery, who was concerned by Terrence’s presentation and wanted to admit him to hospital. However, Terrence was reluctant so it was agreed that urgent blood tests would be taken in the first instance. The results of these tests were seen by a GP, and due to the findings (which indicated a possible serious infection or inflammation) the GP called Terrence and told him to go straight to hospital, and whilst enroute she would speak to the Medical Assessment Unit. In evidence the GP said she then spent 30 minutes on the telephone trying to contact the Medical Assessment Unit as is the required procedure, to discuss Terrence’s admission. After being unable to contact the Medical Assessment Unit, the GP contacted Terrence, via a family member, and told him that as she could not contact the Medical Assessment Unit he should head to the Accident and Emergency department instead. The GP told Terrence she would pre-alert the Accident and Emergency department to his arrival. The GP then spent a further period of time telephoning the Accident and Emergency department but again could not get through. As such upon arrival, a patient who was considered by their GP to be significantly unwell enough to warrant either admission to the Medical Assessment Unit, or that Accident and Emergency should be pre-alerted to their arrival, was unable to speak to either unit prior to the patient’s arrival. Terrence endured a 5 hour wait in Accident and Emergency before being seen. Although observations taken at the time of his subsequent admission suggest he had not developed sepsis at this stage, I am concerned that the inability of a GP to be able to promptly communicate with either the Medical Assessment Unit or Accident and Emergency department may lead to future deaths in cases where suspected sepsis or other life threatening conditions have been differentially diagnosed, especially if those conditions have progressed further than Terrence’s had at the time of his arrival. I am further concerned that evidence was heard from a clinician based at the Ipswich Hospital itself, that they too found contacting the Medical Assessment Unit extremely difficult, with internal hospital telephone calls frequently going unanswered. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective communication during medical emergencies.

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 of internal hospital telephone calls to reach the Medical Assessment Unit

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was heard that prior to his attendance in the Accident and Emergency department on the 16th July 2024, Terrence had been seen at home by a paramedic from his surgery, who was concerned by Terrence’s presentation and wanted to admit him to hospital. However, Terrence was reluctant so it was agreed that urgent blood tests would be taken in the first instance. The results of these tests were seen by a GP, and due to the findings (which indicated a possible serious infection or inflammation) the GP called Terrence and told him to go straight to hospital, and whilst enroute she would speak to the Medical Assessment Unit. In evidence the GP said she then spent 30 minutes on the telephone trying to contact the Medical Assessment Unit as is the required procedure, to discuss Terrence’s admission. After being unable to contact the Medical Assessment Unit, the GP contacted Terrence, via a family member, and told him that as she could not contact the Medical Assessment Unit he should head to the Accident and Emergency department instead. The GP told Terrence she would pre-alert the Accident and Emergency department to his arrival. The GP then spent a further period of time telephoning the Accident and Emergency department but again could not get through. As such upon arrival, a patient who was considered by their GP to be significantly unwell enough to warrant either admission to the Medical Assessment Unit, or that Accident and Emergency should be pre-alerted to their arrival, was unable to speak to either unit prior to the patient’s arrival. Terrence endured a 5 hour wait in Accident and Emergency before being seen. Although observations taken at the time of his subsequent admission suggest he had not developed sepsis at this stage, I am concerned that the inability of a GP to be able to promptly communicate with either the Medical Assessment Unit or Accident and Emergency department may lead to future deaths in cases where suspected sepsis or other life threatening conditions have been differentially diagnosed, especially if those conditions have progressed further than Terrence’s had at the time of his arrival. I am further concerned that evidence was heard from a clinician based at the Ipswich Hospital itself, that they too found contacting the Medical Assessment Unit extremely difficult, with internal hospital telephone calls frequently going unanswered. ”

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

Reiterate to bleep holders the importance of answering calls promptly during Medicine Divisional staff meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“GUIDANCE GIVEN TO BLEEP HOLDERS”

Source location

Response from East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

Restrict the Medical Assessment Unit bleep to external calls, increasing capacity for timely responses and reducing call queues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The bleep in the Medical Assessment Unit is now only used for external calls into the departments, increasing the capacity to answer calls in a timely manner and resulting in shorter call waiting queues.”

Source location

Response from East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

Implement secure electronic patient-record messaging to provide an alternative internal communication route for Medical Assessment Unit users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In October 2025, the Trust implemented a new electronic patient record system, Epic. This new electronic patient record system allows internal users to send secure messages to each other on patient records within the system. This has created a new line of communication internally and has reduced the pressure for response from the medical team for the Medical Assessment Unit providing an alternative means of communication for internal users.”

Source location

Response from East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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 electronic messaging, bleep arrangements and ambulance pre-alert processes are considered an adequate response to communication concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In October 2025, the Trust implemented a new electronic patient record system, Epic. This new electronic patient record system allows internal users to send secure messages to each other on patient records within the system. This has created a new line of communication internally and has reduced the pressure for response from the medical team for the Medical Assessment Unit providing an alternative means of communication for internal users.”

Source location

Response from East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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

Primary care providers are expected to request ambulance attendance for patients with suspected sepsis or life-threatening conditions requiring hospital conveyance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In circumstances where a patient is deemed to have suspected sepsis or be in a life-threatening condition presenting to a primary care provider, the expected course of action would be for the primary care provider to seek ambulance attendance to convey the patient to hospital. This would result in the ambulance service pre-alerting the Emergency Department of the patient’s attendance, through a designated hot line for ambulance pre-alerts.”

Source location

Response from East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 12 March 2026

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