Skip to content

Joan Lunt

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-116 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map

Report metadata

Field Value
PFD reference 2018-0164
Registered primary source SRC-116
Report date 2018-05-29
Coroner area Manchester (South)
Clinical setting Residential care
Care transition Agency staffing within a care home
Primary workflow group Record integrity and provenance
Primary browsing context Primary and community care
Predominant information boundary Within a care setting

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 Social care, care home or supported living
Information or work-item origin Social care, care home or supported living
Origin care context(s) Social care
Expected action destination Social care, care home or supported living
Destination care context(s) Social care
Directional pathway Social care, care home or supported living → Social care, care home or supported living
Care-setting span One care setting
Sector boundary Social care only
Failure point Originating service
Classification confidence high

Classification note: Agency staff created care entries under proxy or generic identities inside one residential-care setting, so provenance was defective at record creation.

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 PROV, HF, GOV

Qualification recorded in the dataset: The death was from natural causes; inclusion is based on the explicit future-risk concern about electronic identity and provenance

“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

Shared identity in the electronic record undermined accountability and safe investigation

Requested action

Harbour Healthcare Limited to act

Digital safety characterisation

Dimension Project extraction
System or record type Electronic care record using proxy or generic user identity
Digital function Authentication and record provenance
Failure mode Agency staff recorded care through proxy or generic electronic identities, obscuring who entered or performed care
Human-factors issue The access arrangement normalised recording under another identity
Workflow issue Governance did not ensure timely individual access for temporary staff
Information issue Electronic entries could not be reliably attributed to the actual author or actor

Downstream Defence trace

Canonical candidate requirements that cite this report: REQ-008. These links are analytical translations and do not make the requirement a coronial recommendation or a validated Defence control.

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.