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 | INT, LOOP, VIS, GOV |
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.