Ruairi Stewart
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-190 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2026-0138 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-190 |
| Report date | 2026-03-10 |
| Coroner area | Cheshire |
| Clinical setting | Private residential mental-health hospital |
| Care transition | Ward care planning and handover to clinical review and investigation |
| Primary workflow group | Risk, care planning and safeguarding |
| Primary browsing context | Mental health care |
| Predominant information boundary | Hybrid paper and digital record |
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 | Private healthcare provider |
| Information or work-item origin | Private healthcare provider |
| Origin care context(s) | Private healthcare |
| Expected action destination | Private healthcare provider |
| Destination care context(s) | Private healthcare |
| Directional pathway | Private healthcare provider → Private healthcare provider |
| Care-setting span | One care setting |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Multiple points |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: The material record and action failures occurred inside one private residential mental-health provider across several electronic and paper representations.
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-235 |
| Non-exclusive mechanism codes | LOOP, GOV, VIS, INT, PROV |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The report describes numerous clinical, governance and disclosure failures; it makes no positive causal finding about fragmented records.
“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
Fragmented record keeping, weak ownership and poor-quality investigation left serious risks unaddressed
Requested action
Alternative Futures Group to address record, care-planning, handover and investigation failures
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Multiple electronic programmes and paper records |
| Digital function | Risk, care-plan, handover and disclosure record |
| Failure mode | Records were kept across multiple locations and media without a central clinical view, alongside inaccurate reports and missing handover information |
| Human-factors issue | Staff and investigators had to assemble risk state from fragmented and sometimes reassuring or incomplete records |
| Workflow issue | Tasks lacked named ownership and no single record supported care, handover, audit and disclosure |
| Information issue | Substance-use history, leave risk, tests and care-plan state were incomplete or inconsistent across representations |
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