PFD report

Elizabeth Anne Lester · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 May 2015•Manchester South

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
0

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Omission of chest-pain questions from the breathing-difficulties dispatch card
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Medical Priority Dispatch System emergency assessment and advice pathwaysPart of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage
Responses linked to these concerns

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

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

  1. Position

    AMPDS users must ask Priority Dispatch directly to review and change the system’s call-handling questions.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Omission of chest-pain questions from the breathing-difficulties dispatch card

Wider context from the report

“As per National practice, the North West Ambulance Service uses Advanced Medical Dispatch System to prioritise calls, based on the answers to scripted questions. During the first call the call-handler asked the relevant questions and followed the “breathing difficulties” card. This card does not include any question as to whether the patient is suffering any chest pains. The call was allocated a green response and the “high volume script” was also given. In fact the patient was short of breath AND did have chest pains, but this was never enquired about. On the second call to the Ambulance service, this aspect was asked about and the call was escalated to a Red response. It is my firm belief, having come across this same issue in a number of inquests, that there is an omission in the ‘card’ for ALL breathing difficulties and it MUST be amended to include a question about chest pain. Breathing difficulties are frequently as a result of compromised heart and/or lung function and this should be queried. I am told that the local ambulance service cannot alter the wording used but that this must be done by the suppliers of the software. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Medical Priority Dispatch System emergency assessment and advice pathways; Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage.

Open source report

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

AMPDS users must ask Priority Dispatch directly to review and change the system’s call-handling questions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Users of AMPDS must contact Priority Dispatch directly if they feel that an element of the system needs to be reviewed and changed. I understand NWAS has responded to your report suggesting that you write directly to the AMPDS contact at Priority Dispatch UK asking for the changes that you have recommended to be considered. I would support this.”

Source location

2015-0204-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 29 May 2015

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 Department cannot provide further help implementing the proposed AMPDS call-handling changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am sorry that the Department cannot be of any further help in implementing the changes you suggest. However, I hope that you find this reply helpful and I am grateful to you for bringing the circumstances of Ms Lester’s death to my attention.”

Source location

2015-0204-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 29 May 2015

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