Michael Drewell
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-121 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2018-0259 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-121 |
| Report date | 2018-08-30 |
| Coroner area | West Yorkshire (Eastern) |
| Clinical setting | Acute hospital care |
| Care transition | Procedure plan to ward prescribing |
| Primary workflow group | Medication and prescribing |
| Primary browsing context | Acute and emergency care |
| Predominant information boundary | Hybrid paper and digital record |
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 | Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Information or work-item origin | Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Origin care context(s) | Secondary care |
| Expected action destination | Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Destination care context(s) | Secondary care |
| Directional pathway | Secondary acute or outpatient care → Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Care-setting span | One care setting |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: The anticoagulation-duration instruction arose in a handwritten procedure note and was expected in the ward's electronic prescribing workflow within the same hospital; it was lost between record representations.
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, VIS, HF, PROV |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The coroner said it was not possible to determine whether the missed duration caused the death; inclusion preserves that uncertainty
“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
The hybrid record allowed an important medication-duration instruction to be missed
Requested action
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Handwritten clinical note and electronic medication record |
| Digital function | Anticoagulation-duration communication |
| Failure mode | The intended six-week anticoagulation duration was recorded in handwriting but not carried into the electronic record used by the junior doctor |
| Human-factors issue | The workflow expected clinicians to infer that a separate paper note contained a time-limited instruction |
| Workflow issue | No reconciliation or review task transferred the stop date into the prescribing workflow |
| Information issue | The duration instruction was split across paper and electronic representations |
Downstream Defence trace
Canonical candidate requirements that cite this report: REQ-007. 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.
Return to all included reports · Open the corpus profile · Review assurance and uncertainty · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map