Akhona Moyo
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-065 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2026-0045 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-065 |
| Report date | 2026-01-28 |
| Coroner area | Northamptonshire |
| Clinical setting | Emergency department/paediatrics |
| Care transition | Primary care to acute hospital |
| Primary workflow group | Record access and continuity |
| Primary browsing context | Maternity and paediatric 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, Acute paediatric care |
| Information or work-item origin | Primary care |
| Origin care context(s) | Primary care |
| Expected action destination | Acute paediatric care |
| Destination care context(s) | Secondary care |
| Directional pathway | Primary care → Acute paediatric care |
| Care-setting span | Multiple care settings |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: Detailed GP records were expected in hospital paediatric and emergency care; the report's reference to community mental-health notes was a general example rather than a confirmed patient-specific origin.
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 | Response evidence noted |
| Registered response sources | SRC-086, SRC-087, SRC-088 |
| Non-exclusive mechanism codes | INT, VIS, HF, GOV |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: Record-access failure was not found causal. Nervecentre went live in 2025 and must not be described as the system involved in the 2022 incident; responses provide incident-state and later technical detail
“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
Lack of electronic access to detailed primary-care notes could impair treatment, especially when patients cannot provide their history
Requested action
DHSC, NHS England and Northampton General Hospital to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Nervecentre EPR and Northamptonshire Care Record |
| Digital function | Cross-setting record access |
| Failure mode | Hospital clinicians could not electronically access detailed primary-care notes; the shared record exposed only basic visit and medication lists |
| Human-factors issue | Clinicians had to assess a non-verbal child without a complete history and work across siloed views |
| Workflow issue | Detailed primary-care information was not integrated into the hospital workflow |
| Information issue | Detailed GP and community mental-health entries were absent from the hospital view |
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.