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 | GOV, VIS, HF, INT |
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.
Return to all included reports · Open the corpus profile · Review assurance and uncertainty · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map