Brian Bicat
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-124 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2018-0277 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-124 |
| Report date | 2018-05-29 |
| Coroner area | West Yorkshire (West) |
| Clinical setting | Primary and community care |
| Care transition | National fire-risk guidance to local prescribing |
| Primary workflow group | Medication and prescribing |
| Primary browsing context | Primary and community care |
| Predominant information boundary | National-to-local information flow |
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 | National programme or service, Primary care |
| Information or work-item origin | National programme or service |
| Origin care context(s) | National programme or service |
| Expected action destination | Primary care |
| Destination care context(s) | Primary care |
| Directional pathway | National programme or service → Primary care |
| Care-setting span | One care setting |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: National paraffin-emollient fire-risk knowledge was expected to appear consistently in locally configured primary-care prescribing systems; deployment and maintenance across CCG configurations were inconsistent.
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, INT, ALERT |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The accidental death followed burns intensified by paraffin-based emollients; inconsistent digital warnings were one element of a much wider labelling, advice and data concern and were not isolated causally
“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
Inconsistent prescribing alerts and warnings formed part of a wider concern about communicating paraffin-emollient fire risk
Requested action
National bodies, manufacturers, NHS England and local organisations to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | SystmOne and OptimiseRx |
| Digital function | Paraffin-emollient fire-risk warnings |
| Failure mode | Prescribing systems appeared to be updated by individual CCGs, producing inconsistent alerts and warnings about paraffin-emollient fire risk |
| Human-factors issue | Clinicians could not rely on a consistent warning model for the same product risk across local configurations |
| Workflow issue | Governance did not ensure that material safety advice was deployed and maintained consistently |
| Information issue | Fire-risk knowledge for paraffin-based emollients was represented differently depending on system and locality |
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