Grahame Searby
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-115 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2018-0162 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-115 |
| Report date | 2018-05-23 |
| Coroner area | West Yorkshire (West) |
| Clinical setting | Community mental-health care |
| Care transition | Mental-health service to GP record |
| Primary workflow group | Record access and continuity |
| 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 | Primary care, Community mental-health care |
| Information or work-item origin | Primary care |
| Origin care context(s) | Primary care |
| Expected action destination | Community mental-health care |
| Destination care context(s) | Community care |
| Directional pathway | Primary care → Community mental-health care |
| Care-setting span | Multiple care settings |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: Relevant SystmOne or EMIS primary-care information was required by community mental-health staff but was not accessible across the service boundary.
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 |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The report identifies an access hazard; it does not establish what the outcome would have been if the records had been available
“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
Lack of access to primary-care records impaired continuity of mental-health care
Requested action
South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | SystmOne and EMIS |
| Digital function | Primary-care record access by mental-health staff |
| Failure mode | Mental-health staff could not access relevant SystmOne or EMIS information when assessing and supporting the patient |
| Human-factors issue | The access boundary left clinicians with partial situational awareness |
| Workflow issue | Continuity depended on manual communication rather than dependable record availability |
| Information issue | Relevant primary-care information was not visible to the mental-health team |
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