Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2021-0335

“NHS England”

Dated 28 Sep 2021, from the coroner for South London. 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.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

All responses published

Replies were due by 23 Nov 2021.

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.

  1. Report dated28 Sep 2021
  2. Deadline23 Nov 2021
  3. Published on judiciary.uk14 Oct 2021
  4. 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.

Next we ask your name, then send a link to confirm and create your free account. Already have an account? Sign in

Responses from each recipient

Responses from each recipient
Sent toResponse
NHS EnglandResponse publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in October 2021.
London Ambulance Service NHS TrustNamed in the report as “London Ambulance Service”Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in October 2021.
College of PolicingResponse publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in October 2021.

The coroner’s concerns

– (1) NHS England. A call to the GP surgery the day before Richard’s death was taken by a receptionist who arranged a routine appointment. She was not a clinician and only had on the job training. The surgery has since introduced a system called Klinic which is safer. It prompts questions and uses an algorithm to alert any urgent or emergency calls that are then flagged. All calls are also reviewed by clinicians. However, I am concerned that other surgeries may employ non-clinicians who may be required to make judgments as to the urgency of appointments, and there is no guidance available to surgeries as to how to mitigate the risks of this. 1 (2) London Ambulance Service. The GP called LAS concerned about Richard’s welfare. LAS attended his home address. Richard was not there. The LAS paramedic advised his sister to call the police. The LAS quality manager accepted in evidence that it would have been better to have taken her number and to pass it on to the police to make contact. I was told that national guidance on this issue was published in the summer. To date, neither guidance to crews nor to control had been updated to make the LAS guidance clearer to those applying it. (3) College of Policing. Due to the Covid pandemic, no ambulances were available when police attended to Richard. The Metropolitan Police Service had a policy that permitted conveying patients to hospital in an emergency if no ambulances were available. However, the policy included no practical guidance as to how that could be achieved mitigating the risks. I heard that the Metropolitan Police Service is updating the guidance. However, I am concerned that other forces across the country may also lack such practical guidance, which is of particular concern due to ongoing pandemic and the demands that may continue of ambulance services.

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, 2021-0335
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

AI

Summaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.

Sign in to use