David Buttriss
Evidence boundary. This page is a structured project extraction from the linked primary Prevention of Future Deaths source. It is not the report text. Do not infer cause, prevalence or product-wide performance beyond the source and the explicit qualification below.
Open the primary Judiciary source · Source register: SRC-108 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2018-0010 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-108 |
| Report date | 2018-01-12 |
| Coroner area | Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly |
| Clinical setting | Primary care and mental-health services |
| Care transition | GP, out-of-hours, mental-health and acute care |
| Primary workflow group | Record access and continuity |
| Primary browsing context | Cross-setting and multi-agency care |
| Predominant information boundary | Between care settings |
The workflow, browsing-context and predominant-boundary fields are retained navigation aids. They are not additional coronial findings, and a single primary value cannot express every aspect of a multi-setting or multi-mechanism report.
Care-pathway classification
This classification distinguishes where safety-relevant information or work arose, where action was expected and where the digital or information workflow failed. It is a project coding of the source, not a coronial statement. “Origin” does not mean the organisation caused the harm.
| Dimension | Project classification |
|---|---|
| Settings and pathway participants | Primary care, Community mental-health care, Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Information or work-item origin | Multiple settings or services |
| Origin care context(s) | Primary care, Community care, Secondary care |
| Expected action destination | Multiple settings or services |
| Destination care context(s) | Primary care, Community care, Secondary care |
| Directional pathway | Multiple settings or services → Multiple settings or services |
| Care-setting span | Multiple care settings |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | medium |
Classification note: Material risk and recent-contact information was held across GP, out-of-hours, mental-health and acute services. The report does not support one directional pathway, so origin and destination remain multiple; cross-service record access was the predominant failure.
Classification confidence applies only to this care-pathway coding. It is separate from extraction confidence, source authority and causal certainty.
Evidence status and qualification
| Field | Status |
|---|---|
| Extraction confidence | high |
| Verification status | Primary source linked; high-confidence extraction |
| Response evidence status | Not assessed in this dataset |
| Registered response sources | None registered for this row |
| Non-exclusive mechanism codes | GOV, VIS, INT, RES |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The inquest concerned suicide; the report identifies record fragmentation as a future-death risk but does not make a separate finding that the digital systems caused the death
“Response evidence noted” means only that the row qualification refers to response/respondent evidence or records a recipient's post-report position. The linked IDs enumerate the official response attachments registered for this row; they do not imply that every response supports every part of the qualification, and they do not establish implementation. “Not assessed” makes no claim about whether a response exists.
Structured project extraction
These fields are analytical summaries, not quotations.
Project summary of the coroner's concern
Separate records prevented a coherent view of the patient across services
Requested action
Cornwall NHS bodies and NHS England to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Separate GP, out-of-hours and mental-health records |
| Digital function | Cross-service record access and continuity |
| Failure mode | Clinicians in different services could not reliably access the records held by the other services |
| Human-factors issue | Each clinician worked from a partial view and could reasonably assume that another record contained relevant information |
| Workflow issue | There was no dependable cross-service workflow for reconciling risk and recent contacts |
| Information issue | Material clinical and risk information was distributed across inaccessible records |
Downstream Defence trace
No canonical candidate Defence requirement currently cites this report. This does not imply that the mechanism is irrelevant; any mapping must be added and qualified in the controlled requirements register.
The included-case dataset preserves early legacy_military_relevance and legacy_derived_requirement fields for audit history. They are not published here as requirements and must not override the canonical REQ register. New report rows do not need to populate them.
Return to all included reports · Open the corpus profile · Review assurance and uncertainty · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map