Audrey King
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-022 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2023-0312 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-022 |
| Report date | 2023-08-22 |
| Coroner area | Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly |
| Clinical setting | Hospital |
| Care transition | Eldercare to surgery |
| 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 | Multiple points |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: A medication recommendation in the eldercare paper notes did not transfer reliably into the surgical team's digital prescribing workflow, and the suspended anticoagulant then lacked a dependable review alert. Material failures therefore occurred both at the paper-to-digital interface and at the destination review point within the same hospital.
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, ALERT, PROV |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: Strong hybrid-record example
“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
Record inconsistency, handwritten-note alerting and EPMA suspension review required action
Requested action
Hospital Trust to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Paper notes, NerveCentre and EPMA |
| Digital function | Medication suspension/record alerts |
| Failure mode | Paper recommendation was not surfaced digitally and suspended anticoagulant lacked review alert |
| Human-factors issue | Clinicians preferred different representations; critical paper note was not flagged |
| Workflow issue | No forced review of ongoing suspension |
| Information issue | Recommendation split across paper and digital records |
Downstream Defence trace
Canonical candidate requirements that cite this report: REQ-007, REQ-009, REQ-012. 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