Skip to content

Mavis Reeves

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-129 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map

Report metadata

Field Value
PFD reference 2018-0035
Registered primary source SRC-129
Report date 2018-02-06
Coroner area Bedfordshire and Luton
Clinical setting Retirement housing telecare
Care transition Resident Careline call to ambulance access
Primary workflow group Triage, observations and decision support
Primary browsing context Primary and community care
Predominant information boundary Patient-to-service channel

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 Patient or home, Police, local authority or other non-health agency, Ambulance, NHS 111 or urgent response
Information or work-item origin Patient or home
Origin care context(s) Patient or public
Expected action destination Ambulance, NHS 111 or urgent response
Destination care context(s) Ambulance or urgent response
Directional pathway Patient or home → Ambulance, NHS 111 or urgent response
Care-setting span One care setting
Sector boundary Health and non-health sectors
Failure point Transfer or interface
Classification confidence high

Classification note: The resident's Careline emergency call passed through a retirement-housing telecare provider to ambulance responders. Analogue-line contention and delayed or incorrect access-code delivery impeded the patient-to-service transfer.

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 RES, HF, VIS, GOV

Qualification recorded in the dataset: Included as a bounded telecare and health-IT design case rather than an EHR case; the conclusion was natural causes and the report did not find that the system delay 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

Analogue telecare architecture and emergency-access arrangements created delay and single-point-of-failure risk

Requested action

FirstPort Retirement Property Services Limited to act

Digital safety characterisation

Dimension Project extraction
System or record type Analogue Careline and automated building-entry system
Digital function Emergency telecare connection and access
Failure mode A single analogue line meant an active Careline call could block the entry call and other residents, while access-code delivery and connection were delayed
Human-factors issue The system behaviour was not apparent to residents or responders and the available code could be late or incorrect
Workflow issue There was no resilient alternative that guaranteed emergency-service entry while the telecare line was occupied
Information issue Caller data and building-access information were transmitted slowly and did not reliably reach the responder at the point of need

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.