“The urgent care pathway across Nottinghamshire, whilst working well for most patients…”
Dated 5 Jan 2026, from the coroner for Nottinghamshire. Sent to 4 organisations or people.
A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.
The 56-day response deadline
All responses publishedReplies were due by 2 Mar 2026.
Organisations that receive a report must reply to the coroner within 56 days, saying what they will do or why they will do nothing. We show whether a response is published on judiciary.uk; a reply may have been sent and not yet published.
- Report dated5 Jan 2026
- Deadline2 Mar 2026
- Published on judiciary.uk8 Jan 2026
- Today24 Oct 2026
Watch this report
We’ll email you when a response is published on judiciary.uk, or when the 56 days to reply end with none published there yet. Free, and you can stop with one click.
Responses from each recipient
| Sent to | Response |
|---|---|
| East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2026. |
| Nottingham Emergency Medical Service | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2026. |
| NHS England | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2026. |
| NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care BoardNamed in the report as “Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2026. |
The coroner’s concerns
– 1. The urgent care pathway across Nottinghamshire, whilst working well for most patients, poorly serves patients with systemic illness that is serious, but not immediately life threatening, (such as is seen in sepsis), and where clinical assessment disposition reached is for a Category 3 ambulance response 2. There remains detailed information in the EMAS Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) transferred from the 111 service that is not reliably read or considered by EMAS staff, when cancelling a requested ambulance response and referring a case on to the Clinical Assessment Service provided by NEMS. 3. Families, waiting for an ambulance response, following a clinical assessment by a 111 clinical adviser are not told by EMAS that an ambulance will not be sent 4. Category 3 calls are viewed by non- clinicians at the EMAS Emergency Operations Centre, who do not have sufficient skills to safely transfer calls to NEMS, as the inclusion/exclusion criteria are open to interpretation 5. There is no agreement between EMAS and NEMS as to the criteria for transfer of a category 3 call, including whether or not a previous clinical validation would preclude transfer to NEMS I am not reassured that necessary actions to address these serious issues identified are 6 in place.
An extract. Read the full report, including the circumstances of the death, on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.
- Source
- judiciary.uk, Prevention of Future Deaths reports, 2026-0002
- Added to Minute Book
- 8 Oct 2026
- Reuse
- We show short extracts and link to the original. We don’t host the full report.
Something wrong, such as a date or who it was sent to? Report a mistake
Is this report about someone close to you? You can ask us to remove names from our pages.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, judiciary.uk. Open Government Licence v3.0
Ask about this report
AISummaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.
Sign in to use