Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Aylina Akhmadova

Ref: 2026-0363 Date: 6 Jul 2026 Coroner: Sarah Bourke Area: Inner North London 3 responses identified · 3 indexed addressees View PDF

Response deadline: 31 August 2026 (stated in the report).

Date 6 Jul 2026
56-day deadline 31 Aug 2026 stated in the report
Responses identified 3 of 3

Coroner's concerns

Coroner’s Concerns (source excerpt)
1) Primary care professionals such as GP’s, health visitors and midwives spend the most one-to-one time with families. They will be aware which patients and/or carers need assistance from interpreters for medical appointments.
View full coroner's concerns
1)  Primary care professionals such as GP’s, health visitors and midwives  spend the most one-to-one time with families. They will be aware which  patients and/or carers need assistance from interpreters for medical  appointments. In primary care, professionals often give safety netting  advice regarding the circumstances in which a person may need to call  paramedics. For safety netting advice to be effective, patients and carers also need to know that a 999 call should be made by someone who is  with the patient and that interpreters are available to help the  ambulance service triage the call.  

2)  Using informal interpreters such as family and friends for primary care  appointments can be a pragmatic solution when professional  interpreters are not available. However, the practice carries a significant degree of risk as the informal interpreter may not convey information  reliably. This can be mitigated in part if the healthcare professional is  with the patient and able to form their own view of the patient’s status  based on the observations that can be made.  

3)  The use of informal interpreters in primary care settings can lead to  patients and carers wrongly assuming that emergency assistance can  only be accessed by someone who is able to speak English on their  behalf. Where an informal interpreter is not with the patient, there is a substantial risk that they will not be able to give sufficiently accurate  and/or up to date information to enable the Ambulance Service to  reliably triage a call.

Responses

3 respondents

Royal College of General Practitioners

PDF
Received

No AI summary available.

Royal College of Midwives

PDF
Received

No AI summary available.

Institute of Health Visiting

PDF
Received

No AI summary available.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 7 October 2025, Senior Coroner Hassell commenced an investigation into the death of Aylina Akhmadova aged 17 days. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 27 May 2026.  

The conclusion of the inquest was that the medical cause of death was 1a Sudden unexplained death in infancy (SUDEP).  

I returned the following narrative conclusion: Aylina Akhmadova was born on 16 September 2025. Her parents require  assistance from interpreters for medical appointments. Aylina was seen by  midwives and health visitors following her birth who had no significant concerns regarding her health. On the night of 2 – 3 October, Ayline stopped feeding and  kept crying. Her mother noted that she was less responsive and asked a friend to call the ambulance service on her behalf. A call was made at 8.47 am and  classed as a 3rd party call as the friend was not with Aylina. The call handler  requested contact details for Aylina’s mother but was instead given details for  her father who was at work. From the information that he provided the call was  classed as a category 3 call which broadly requires a response within 2 hours.  Aylina’s father was wrongly told that a 111 call should be made or Aylina should  be taken to an urgent treatment centre. No contact details were given for  Aylina’s mother at that time. Around 9.15 am, a paramedic made a number of  attempts to follow up the call and obtain more information from Aylina’s  mother who was by that time travelling to hospital by taxi. Contact was made  with Aylina’s mother at 9.17 am but the paramedic was unable to obtain more  information due to problems with lines being engaged, calls being dropped and  the need to bring interpreters into the call. The taxi driver independently called  the ambulance service at 9.28. He was advised to stop the taxi and await  paramedics at a fixed location. Paramedics were dispatched and arrived at the  location at 9.37 am but the taxi had continued travelling to the hospital. When  Aylina arrived at hospital at 9.40 am she was in cardiac arrest. Attempts were  made to resuscitate Aylina but her death was confirmed at 10.13 am. The  precise cause of Aylina’s death could not be determined at post-mortem. On the evidence available, it is not possible to say that Aylina would have survived if her mother had been spoken to earlier. However, the difficulties in contacting  her mother meant that opportunities were missed to obtain information that  may have led the Ambulance Service to give the call higher priority.
Circumstances of the death
The circumstances of Aylina’s death are set out in the above narrative  conclusion. The evidence established that Aylina’s parents did not know that  the Ambulance Service is able to access telephone interpreter services for 999  calls. Similarly, the evidence established that Aylina’s parents did not know that the Ambulance Service operates a triage system to determine the appropriate response to a 999 call and that a call should be made by someone who is with the patient.

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Report details

Reference
2026-0363
Date of report
6 July 2026
Coroner
Sarah Bourke
Coroner area
Inner North London

Responses identified

Responses identified 3 of 3
All listed responses identified

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 31 Aug 2026 (stated in the report).

Sent to

Institute of Health Visiting
Royal College of General Practitioners
Royal College of Midwives

Source links