Eric Thompson
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-019 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2024-0323 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-019 |
| Report date | 2024-06-14 |
| Coroner area | North Wales (East and Central) |
| Clinical setting | Emergency department/laboratory |
| Care transition | Laboratory to ED |
| Primary workflow group | Diagnostic results and investigations |
| Primary browsing context | Acute and emergency 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 | Laboratory, radiology or diagnostic service, Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Information or work-item origin | Laboratory, radiology or diagnostic service |
| Origin care context(s) | Diagnostic service |
| Expected action destination | Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Destination care context(s) | Secondary care |
| Directional pathway | Laboratory, radiology or diagnostic service → Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Care-setting span | Multiple care settings |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: The abnormal laboratory result existed but was not actively delivered with acknowledgement and escalation to accountable emergency-department staff.
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, GOV, VIS, ALERT, RES |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: Anchor case
“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
Person-to-person method should be replaced or supported by efficient abnormal-result alerting
Requested action
Health Board to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Laboratory and electronic ED record |
| Digital function | Critical results |
| Failure mode | Abnormal result was available but no efficient electronic alert delivered it to accountable staff |
| Human-factors issue | Availability was mistaken for communication; telephone retry added fragility |
| Workflow issue | No closed-loop acknowledgement or escalation |
| Information issue | Present but not delivered/actioned |
Downstream Defence trace
Canonical candidate requirements that cite this report: REQ-004, REQ-005, 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