Theresa Lydon
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-048 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PFD reference | 2026-0244 |
| Registered primary source | SRC-048 |
| Report date | 2026-04-21 |
| Coroner area | Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside |
| Clinical setting | Primary and hospital care |
| Care transition | GP and neighbouring hospital Trusts |
| Primary workflow group | Record access and continuity |
| Primary browsing context | Cross-setting and multi-agency 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 | Secondary acute or outpatient care, Primary care |
| Information or work-item origin | Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Origin care context(s) | Secondary care |
| Expected action destination | Multiple settings or services |
| Destination care context(s) | Primary care, Secondary care |
| Directional pathway | Secondary acute or outpatient care → Multiple settings or services |
| Care-setting span | Multiple care settings |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: Hospital information needed action by a GP and by clinicians in a neighbouring Trust; both the scanned treatment-plan letter and cross-Trust records failed at transfer.
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 | VIS, INT, HF, LOOP, GOV |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: Combines paper-electronic ingestion and interoperability
“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
National correspondence clarity and prompt cross-Trust access required action
Requested action
National and local recipients to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Scanned correspondence and separate hospital records |
| Digital function | Treatment plan/record access |
| Failure mode | Actions were obscured in non-standard scanned correspondence and neighbouring Trust records arrived after death |
| Human-factors issue | Administrator cues and variable formats shaped what GP saw |
| Workflow issue | Treatment action and cross-Trust retrieval lacked reliable ownership/timeliness |
| Information issue | Action hidden; external records delayed |
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.