Joanne Richardson
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-113 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2018-0134 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-113 |
| Report date | 2018-05-08 |
| Coroner area | Dorset |
| Clinical setting | Community mental-health care |
| Care transition | Assessment, referral and follow-up |
| Primary workflow group | Risk, care planning and safeguarding |
| Primary browsing context | Mental health 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 | Community mental-health care |
| Information or work-item origin | Community mental-health care |
| Origin care context(s) | Community care |
| Expected action destination | Community mental-health care |
| Destination care context(s) | Community care |
| Directional pathway | Community mental-health care → Community mental-health care |
| Care-setting span | One care setting |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: The assessment, crisis and CMHT information moved between Steps to Wellbeing, the Crisis Team and the CMHT within community mental-health care. The failure was cross-team transfer and follow-up, not a demonstrated primary-to-secondary transition.
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 | LOOP, GOV, VIS, INT |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The report frames the electronic-record and referral defects as future-death risks and does not attribute this death to a discrete digital-system failure
“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
Restricted access and incomplete electronic recording created future risk in mental-health follow-up
Requested action
Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | RiO electronic patient record |
| Digital function | Record access, documentation and referral tracking |
| Failure mode | Staff had only partial RiO access and material contacts or referral actions were not reliably entered and visible |
| Human-factors issue | Partial access created a misleadingly incomplete picture for subsequent users |
| Workflow issue | No closed-loop referral workflow confirmed receipt, ownership and action |
| Information issue | The record did not expose a complete chronology of assessment and referral |
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