Margaret Spencer
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-109 · 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-MARGARET-SPENCER |
| Registered primary source | SRC-109 |
| Report date | 2018-03-29 |
| Coroner area | Black Country |
| Clinical setting | Hospital outpatient care |
| Care transition | Diagnostic follow-up during system migration |
| Primary workflow group | Screening and longitudinal surveillance |
| Primary browsing context | Acute and emergency care |
| Predominant information boundary | Within a care setting |
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 |
| Information or work-item origin | Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Origin care context(s) | Secondary care |
| Expected action destination | Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Destination care context(s) | Secondary care |
| Directional pathway | Secondary acute or outpatient care → Secondary acute or outpatient care |
| Care-setting span | One care setting |
| Sector boundary | Health services only |
| Failure point | Originating service |
| Classification confidence | high |
Classification note: An outpatient follow-up work item was prematurely closed during migration within the hospital service, so the electronic follow-up state was incorrect before later surveillance action was due.
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-173 |
| Non-exclusive mechanism codes | LOOP, GOV, HF, RES |
Qualification recorded in the dataset: The report described IT and administrative failures as contributing to a death also associated with neglect; it does not support attributing the outcome to Lorenzo alone
“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
System migration and administrative failures allowed required follow-up to be lost
Requested action
Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust to act
Digital safety characterisation
| Dimension | Project extraction |
|---|---|
| System or record type | Lorenzo patient administration system |
| Digital function | Follow-up list migration and tracking |
| Failure mode | Follow-up was prematurely closed during the Lorenzo migration and the patient was lost from surveillance |
| Human-factors issue | Migration, unfamiliar workflows and training limitations made follow-up state difficult to interpret |
| Workflow issue | No assured reconciliation identified prematurely closed or omitted follow-up work |
| Information issue | The electronic follow-up state no longer represented the outstanding clinical action |
Downstream Defence trace
Canonical candidate requirements that cite this report: REQ-010. 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