PFD report

Michael Clarke · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 May 2024•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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
5

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 raised4

  1. Failure to account for actual category 3 ambulance response times when accepting call categorisation
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triagePart of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance response-time standards and prioritisationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable category 3 ambulance assessment and response arrangements
  2. Lack of specific sepsis trigger questions on the ambulance pathway
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis
  3. Delays in category 3 ambulance responses
    Part of recurring concern: Delays in ambulance attendancePart of recurring concern: Unreliable category 3 ambulance assessment and response arrangements
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.4

  1. Action

    Monitor achievement of all Ambulance Response Programme standards through the North West Ambulance Improvement Plan and regional urgent-care governance arrangements.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 May 2024.
  2. Action

    Continue developing alternative referral pathways, including urgent community response, to provide timely and appropriate care.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 May 2024.
  3. Action

    Maintain ambulance capacity increases achieved during 2023/24 to support improved response times.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 May 2024.

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

  1. Position

    NHS Pathways already considers sepsis through symptom-based assessment and provides an option to identify suspected sepsis.

    Stated by NHS EnglandExisting 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 to account for actual category 3 ambulance response times when accepting call categorisation

Wider context from the report

“2. The inquest was told that the initial call to NWAS was made by the out of hours nurse. She made it clear that she felt the ambulance response needed to be within 1 hour. As this was in theory the response time consistent with a category 3 response, she accepted the categorisation. This acceptance did not appear to take into account that on that evening a category 3 call was not going to result in an ambulance within 1 hour. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage; Unreliable ambulance response-time standards and prioritisation; Unreliable category 3 ambulance assessment and response arrangements.

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

Lack of specific sepsis trigger questions on the ambulance pathway

Wider context from the report

“3. The evidence before the inquest was that there were no specific sepsis trigger questions on the ambulance pathway. The nurse suspected sepsis and gave that indication but that did not trigger a faster response despite the recognition that where sepsis is suspected antibiotics need to commence as a priority. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis.

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

Delays in category 3 ambulance responses

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest was told that due to significant demand the wait time for an ambulance in category 3 was in excess of 4 hours rather than the target 1 hour. The inquest was told that this was not unusual and was still an ongoing issue. The evidence was that this was not unique to NWAS but the general picture in England. The inquest was told that there had been improvements in category 1 and 2 response times but to achieve this category 3 calls continued to have these significant delays. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in ambulance attendance; Unreliable category 3 ambulance assessment and response arrangements.

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 suspected sepsis indications to trigger a faster ambulance response

Wider context from the report

“3. The evidence before the inquest was that there were no specific sepsis trigger questions on the ambulance pathway. The nurse suspected sepsis and gave that indication but that did not trigger a faster response despite the recognition that where sepsis is suspected antibiotics need to commence as a priority. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond promptly to sepsis.

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

Monitor achievement of all Ambulance Response Programme standards through the North West Ambulance Improvement Plan and regional urgent-care governance arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledge this is still not achieving the national standards which is why for 2024/25 achieving all ARP standards, not just the NHS England UEC recovery plan of category 2 mean, is part of the North West Ambulance Improvement Plan being monitored by the North West Ambulance and 111 commissioning team and UEC ICB leads at the Strategic Partnership and Transformation Board which includes NHS England UEC Regional representation.”

Source location

Response from NHS England and NHS GMIC
Page 7 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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

Continue developing alternative referral pathways, including urgent community response, to provide timely and appropriate care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst ambulance response times have not returned to pre-pandemic levels, there were improvements in ambulance response times nationally during 2023/24. The 2023/24 year-end Category 3 Mean time to respond was 2 hours 4 minutes 14 seconds which is 31 minutes 4 seconds quicker than 2022/23 and the 2023/24 year-end Category 2 Mean was 36 minutes 23 seconds which is 13 minutes 37 seconds quicker than 2022/23. For 2024/25, the Delivery Plan continues to focus on the improvement of ambulance response times, with ambulance services expected to maintain the increases in capacity achieved throughout 2023/24, alongside the continued development of alternative referral pathways (e.g. urgent community response) to ensure that patients receive timely and high-quality care.”

Source location

Response from NHS England and NHS GMIC
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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

Maintain ambulance capacity increases achieved during 2023/24 to support improved response times.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The plan outlined key actions to recover and improve urgent and emergency care services, including improving ambulance response times, increasing ambulance capacity through growing the workforce (for example, increasing clinical capacity in control rooms), alongside broader system actions to improving flow through hospitals and reducing handover delays, speeding up discharges from hospitals and expanding new services in the community, all of which should help ambulance crews to get back on the road to the next waiting patient more rapidly.”

Source location

Response from NHS England and NHS GMIC
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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

Publish the Delivery Plan for recovering urgent and emergency care services, including actions to improve ambulance response times and capacity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your first concern is centred on the significant demand and waiting times for a Category 3 ambulance which was more than four hours rather than the one-hour target. NHS England recognises the significant pressure on ambulance services since the Covid-19 pandemic, which has seen longer response times across all categories than before the pandemic, as well as issues associated with handing over ambulance patients in a timely way at some NHS Trusts. NHS England has prioritised improving ambulance performance during 2023/24, supported by the Delivery plan for recovering urgent and emergency care services, which was published in January 2023.”

Source location

Response from NHS England and NHS GMIC
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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 Pathways already considers sepsis through symptom-based assessment and provides an option to identify suspected sepsis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your third concern raised was regarding there being no specific sepsis questions on the ambulance pathway. The NHS Pathways triage system is a clinical decision support system (CDSS) supporting the assessment of patients presenting to urgent and emergency services, such as ambulance services. The system is owned by the Department for Health and Social Care and delivered by the Transformation Directorate of NHS England.”

Source location

Response from NHS England and NHS GMIC
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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 Category 3 ambulance categorisation was audited and considered safe and appropriate based on the patient’s presentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You also raised a concern that the initial call to North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) was made by an out of hours Nurse who requested an ambulance within one hour as this is consistent with Category 3 response call-outs. It was not considered then that on that evening a Category 3 call was not going to result in an ambulance attending within one hour.”

Source location

Response from NHS England and NHS GMIC
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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

    Discuss Regulation 28 reports through the national working group and share learning and insights across NHS regional and national services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 May 2024.

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 Regulation 28 reports through the national working group and share learning and insights across NHS regional and national services.

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 by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England and NHS GMIC
Page 4 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026