Alan Peet
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-221 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2025-0609 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-221 |
| Report date | 2025-12-05 |
| Coroner area | Manchester South |
| Clinical setting | Nursing care home |
| Care transition | Agency nurse observations and medicines work to care-home record |
| Primary workflow group | Record integrity and provenance |
| Primary browsing context | Primary and community 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 | Social care, care home or supported living |
| Information or work-item origin | Social care, care home or supported living |
| Origin care context(s) | Social care |
| Expected action destination | Social care, care home or supported living |
| Destination care context(s) | Social care |
| Directional pathway | Social care, care home or supported living → Social care, care home or supported living |
| Care-setting span | One care setting |
| Sector boundary | Social care only |
| Failure point | Originating service |
| Classification confidence | medium |
Classification note: The electronic care and medication entries were created and used inside one nursing care home; the source qualifies authorship as likely rather than certain.
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; qualified extraction |
| Response evidence status | No official response located |
| Registered response sources | None registered for this row |
| Non-exclusive mechanism codes | GOV, HF, PROV, RES |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The report says it was likely entries were made under another nurse's details and does not establish exactly who entered each item; the death also involved staffing, training and clinical-care failures
“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
Access-control failure and extremely poor notes prevented reconstruction of deterioration despite one-to-one care
Requested action
Acer Mews Care Home and the Care Quality Commission to address access, staffing oversight and record quality
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Care-home electronic care and medication systems |
| Digital function | Authenticated documentation, medicines access and audit provenance |
| Failure mode | The agency nurse lacked login rights and likely made entries under another nurse's credentials, making authorship impossible to untangle |
| Human-factors issue | Management knowingly placed a temporary worker into a role without the system access required to document care safely |
| Workflow issue | No resilient onboarding or downtime process preserved attributable recording for agency staff |
| Information issue | Observation, action and medication entries could not be reliably attributed to the person who made them |
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