Hannah Booth
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-046 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2025-0615 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-046 |
| Report date | 2025-12-09 |
| Coroner area | Derby and Derbyshire |
| Clinical setting | Primary/perinatal/community care |
| Care transition | GP, health visiting and mental health |
| Primary workflow group | Identity and population management |
| Primary browsing context | Primary and community 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 | Primary care, Community health or rehabilitation, Community mental-health care |
| Information or work-item origin | Multiple settings or services |
| Origin care context(s) | Primary care, Community care |
| Expected action destination | Community mental-health care |
| Destination care context(s) | Community care |
| Directional pathway | Multiple settings or services → Community mental-health care |
| Care-setting span | Multiple care settings |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Multiple points |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: GP and health-visiting contacts generated relevant maternal information, but wrong-subject recording and absent sharing prevented the perinatal mental-health team from seeing the developing pattern.
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, INT, PROV, IDPOP |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: Do not infer a simple single-record solution; sharing relevance also mattered
“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
Different systems and mother/baby record placement created future risk
Requested action
Multiple providers, ICB and NHS England to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | SystmOne and non-SystmOne GP record |
| Digital function | Identity/record sharing |
| Failure mode | Maternal risk information was placed only in the baby's record and fragmented across services |
| Human-factors issue | Each service saw a partial picture; repeated contact pattern was not visible |
| Workflow issue | No shared rule for cross-record relevance and escalation |
| Information issue | Relevant information attached to wrong longitudinal subject |
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