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 | IDPOP, INT, PROV, VIS, LOOP, GOV |
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.