Caliel Smith-Kwami
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-106 · Return to all included reports · Open the case–mechanism/evidence map
Report metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Project report ID (official PFD reference not shown) | UNREF-2018-CALIEL-SMITH-KWAMI |
| Registered primary source | SRC-106 |
| Report date | 2018-01-22 |
| Coroner area | London (East) |
| Clinical setting | Neonatal hospital care |
| Care transition | Laboratory result to paediatric follow-up |
| Primary workflow group | Diagnostic results and investigations |
| Primary browsing context | Maternity and paediatric 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 | Laboratory, radiology or diagnostic service, Acute paediatric care |
| Information or work-item origin | Laboratory, radiology or diagnostic service |
| Origin care context(s) | Diagnostic service |
| Expected action destination | Acute paediatric care |
| Destination care context(s) | Secondary care |
| Directional pathway | Laboratory, radiology or diagnostic service → Acute paediatric care |
| Care-setting span | Multiple care settings |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Transfer or interface |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: The abnormal newborn-screening result arose in the laboratory and required paediatric follow-up; electronic availability without active notification and loss of the paper notice made the transfer boundary the predominant failure point.
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 | LOOP, GOV, VIS, HF, ALERT |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The report connected the missed abnormal result and referral to delayed diagnosis; the electronic record was one component of a hybrid notification failure and is not isolated as the sole cause
“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
The hybrid result-notification process allowed an abnormal newborn-screening result to remain unactioned
Requested action
Barts Health NHS Trust to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Electronic health record and paper laboratory notification |
| Digital function | Newborn-screening result filing and notification |
| Failure mode | An abnormal result was entered in the electronic record without a reliable active notification, while the paper notification was lost |
| Human-factors issue | Passive electronic availability and ordinary filing did not give the time-critical result sufficient salience |
| Workflow issue | No closed-loop acknowledgement or escalation ensured that the abnormal result was reviewed and acted on |
| Information issue | The critical result existed electronically but was not delivered to an accountable clinician |
Downstream Defence trace
Canonical candidate requirements that cite this report: REQ-004. These links are analytical translations and do not make the requirement a coronial recommendation or a validated Defence control.
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