Paula Doreen Hughes
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-041 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2025-0511 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-041 |
| Report date | 2025-10-14 |
| Coroner area | Inner South London |
| Clinical setting | Hospital |
| Care transition | Admission and prescribing |
| Primary workflow group | Medication and prescribing |
| Primary browsing context | Acute and emergency 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 | 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 | Receiving or action service |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: Concurrent paracetamol-containing prescriptions were present in the hospital prescribing workflow but optional duplicate checking and local controls did not reliably prevent or identify them.
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, HF, ALERT |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: Report also concerns response after therapeutic excess
“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
National duplicate-prescribing risk and preservation of local safety nets during replacement
Requested action
Trust, NHS England, vendor and regulators to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Cerner electronic prescribing |
| Digital function | Duplicate medication/prescribing safety |
| Failure mode | Known drug composition was not made a reliable system barrier |
| Human-factors issue | Duplicate-checking function was optional and local safety controls risked loss during replacement |
| Workflow issue | Duplicate prescriptions were not prevented or recognised |
| Information issue | Concurrent paracetamol-containing prescriptions |
Downstream Defence trace
Canonical candidate requirements that cite this report: REQ-010. 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