“I am concerned that there are clear breaches in Information Governance protocols”
Dated 12 Dec 2017, from the coroner for Isle of Wight. Sent to 3 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
Report put online after its 56 daysOrganisations 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.
judiciary.uk put this report online on 11 Feb 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (6 Feb 2018). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.
- Report dated12 Dec 2017
- Deadline6 Feb 2018
- Published on judiciary.uk11 Feb 2018
- Today23 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 |
|---|---|
| Isle of Wight NHS Trust | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 11 Feb 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (6 Feb 2018). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| St Mary’s Hospital | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 11 Feb 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (6 Feb 2018). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| Care Quality CommissionNamed in the report as “CQC” | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 11 Feb 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (6 Feb 2018). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
The coroner’s concerns
– 1. I am concerned that there are clear breaches in Information Governance protocols. It is clear that there are IG issues which allow one Clinician to make entries or delete information from a patient’s medical records, when they are not correctly logged in to the database, or are doing so under a colleague’s log-in (which remains live after they’ve walked away from the computer terminal). Matters are compounded inasmuch as these edits are then found to be invisible to those clinicians who are actually treating the patient, and are only ascertainable when an IT audit trail is undertaken. It should not be possible for Doctor A to be able to access records made by Doctor B and to alter those medical records.
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, 2017-0371
- 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