Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Paula Ivers

Ref: 2026-0409 Date: 26 Aug 2026 Coroner: Chris Morris Area: Manchester South 4 responses identified · 2 indexed addressees View PDF

Response deadline: 21 October 2026 (stated in the report).

Date 26 Aug 2026
56-day deadline 21 Oct 2026 stated in the report
Responses identified 4 of 2

Coroner's concerns

Coroner’s Concerns (source excerpt)
To the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1 ) The court heard evidence from the Clinical Lead of SDEC as to a range of factors which he considers have contributed to increased attendances to the Trust’s urgent care services. I am concerned that one of the factors cited in evidence related to...
View full coroner's concerns
To the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

1 )  The court heard evidence from the Clinical Lead of SDEC as to a range of factors which he considers have contributed to increased attendances to the Trust’s urgent care services. I am concerned that one of the factors cited in evidence related to inability of some patients to obtain appointments at the GP practice they are registered with in a timely manner. 2)  It is understood from the evidence heard at inquest that NHS Trusts apply varying criteria as to which patients may be seen in an SDEC as opposed to an Emergency Department. It is a matter of concern from the evidence that there currently appears to be no national requirement which mandates early substantive face-to-face review by an experienced doctor or Advanced Practitioner prior to the streaming of a patient. To the Chief Executive, Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust

1 )  Notwithstanding the significant a mount of work the Trust has undertaken in the light of its investigation into the care afforded to Ms Ivers, it is a matter of concern that key familial history (such as early cardiac death of an immediate family member) is not automatically captured bythe initial contact with a clinician.

2)  I am concerned that patients who present to the Trust with chest pain do not routinely have their blood pressure checked in both arms as a matter of course.

Responses

4 respondents

Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Trust

PDF
AI-classified response stance Action Taken
AI-generated response summary

The Trust has reinforced learning on documenting family history, rolled out GMCR training, and introduced electronic SDEC assessments with compulsory family history fields. A new ED chest pain assessment pathway, which includes bilateral blood pressure checks, has also been introduced and disseminated.

View full response
Dear HM Coroner Patient: Ms Paula Ivers Date of Birth: 09.02.1977 Date of Death: 08.03.2024 Firstly, on behalf of the Trust, I would like to express my sincere condolences to Ms Iver’s family for their loss. The Trust acknowledges the concerns raised during the course of the inquest around key familial history not automatically being captured by the initial contact with the clinician and patients who present to the Trust with chest pain do not routinely have their blood pressure checked in both arms as a matter of course. These concerns will be addressed below. Learning has been reinforced regarding the importance of obtaining and documenting a relevant family history at the earliest patient and clinician contact. Early identification of a family history of significant conditions, including cardiovascular disease, aortic disease, sudden cardiac death, thrombotic disorders, and inherited conditions, can provide valuable diagnostic information and influence clinical decision-making. Brief B2

[Page 2] family history is captured at the point of triage in the Emergency Department (ED) and that triage form is then reviewed by the clinician during their patient review. A full history, including significant family history, forms part of the clinical consultation. This supports a more comprehensive evaluation of patient risk factors, assists in the identification of potentially serious underlying pathology, and promotes timely investigation and escalation where appropriate. The Trust now also have in place an ED chest pain streaming pathway which takes into account the clinical review and the patients’ presentation to ensure that the patient receives the right care in the right place. The Trust also have access to the Greater Manchester Care Record (GMCR) which is a shared digital health and social care record used across Greater Manchester. It brings together information from NHS and care organisations into one secure record so that health and care professionals can access the information they need to provide safer and more coordinated care. It includes information such as current health conditions and diagnoses, medications, allergies, test results, care plans, mental health information, social care information and information provided by patients and carers through the “My GM Care” application. Access is limited to authorised health and social care professionals involved in a person's care for example GPs, hospital clinicians, community health teams, mental health services, social care staff and ambulance services and other specialist NHS services. The GMCR was developed to improve patient safety, reduce the need for patients to repeat their medical history, enable faster and better informed clinical decisions, improve coordination between organisations and support integrated care across Greater Manchester. The GMCR covers nearly the entire Greater Manchester population, connecting hundreds of GP practices and health and care organisations across all ten Greater Manchester boroughs. It is used by thousands of frontline staff each month to support patient care. Within the Trust, our clinicians can view important information diagnoses, medications, allergies, test results, care plans and recent contacts with other services without needing to contact multiple organisations. This can be particularly valuable in emergency and out-of-hours settings. Staff must complete role-appropriate training and be authorised to access the system as part of their professional duties. Extensive training has been rolled out across the organisation on the use of GMCR. In addition to GMCR training, staff also complete Information Governance training, Data Security Awareness training/Cyber security training and specific electronic patient record B3

[Page 3] training. The Trust has continued to strengthen its utilisation of GMCR to improve access to patient information. This enables clinicians to view relevant records held by NHS and GP organisations, supporting more informed clinical decision-making, improved communication between services and enhanced continuity of care. We are continually working to improve the Trust documentation and we have carried out a sample audit in SDEC of random sample of 10 patients for the months of June, July and August. This audits measures against GMC expectation for accuracy, clarity, timeliness, relevance, confidentiality and support for care and includes documentation around familial history. The below table demonstrates the results of the audit which you can see supports an improvement: In SDEC, clinical assessments are now all electronic, whereas previously and at the time of Ms Iver’s attendance, it was paper based. Clinical assessment, differential diagnosis and family history is now a compulsory field and progression on the electronic system cannot be actioned until this is completed. These compulsory fields are checked by the treating clinician and verified for accuracy. It is these compulsory fields that generate the discharge letter and actions for the GP which are now auto populated at the top of each discharge letter. Embedding this practice within routine clinical assessment has improved the quality of clinical documentation, supported earlier diagnosis, and ultimately improved patient safety and outcomes. B4

[Page 4] The Trust has also introduced an ED chest pain assessment pathway that provides a more structured and standardised approach to the assessment and management of patients presenting with chest pain. This pathway included blood pressure (BP) to be taken in both arms. Therefore, when a patient with chest pain is examined, bilateral BP is undertaken The pathway supports patients’ presentation, age, how long they have had chest pain and the treatment options, while facilitating the safe and timely streaming of low-risk patients to the Trusts medical SDEC. This went through the Trust’s governance processes, ratification and was disseminated in June 2026. I have attached a copy of that pathway for your consideration. Key learning from this inquest has been disseminated Trust wide including the importance of comprehensive clinical assessment, timely investigation, and clear documentation of clinical decision-making. The introduction of the pathway promotes consistent practice across the department, supports earlier access to diagnostic testing where indicated, and strengthens escalation processes for patients with concerning features. This learning has been shared with clinical staff to support safe and effective adoption of the new process. The Trusts acknowledges the concerns identified during the inquest and has taken the opportunity to strengthen both clinical areas to enhance continuity of care, support timely and informed decisions and contribute to patient safety by introducing electronic records for SDEC and clear streaming pathways which will continue to be monitored through the Trust’s audit process. I do hope that this letter provides you with further reassurance, however, should you have any queries arising from the content of this letter or require further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Legal Services on

Department of Health and Social Care

Central Government
PDF
AI-classified response stance Noted
AI-generated response summary

The Department of Health and Social Care acknowledged the report but deferred the concerns regarding GP access and in-person triage to NHS England, stating that NHS England is the more appropriate body to provide a full response.

View full response
Dear Chris Morris, Thank you for the Regulation 28 report of 18 June 2026 about the death of Paula Ivers. I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for urgent and emergency care. Firstly, I would like to say how saddened I was to read of the circumstances of Ms Ivers’ death, and I offer my sincere condolences to her family and loved ones. The circumstances your report describes are concerning and I am grateful to you for bringing these matters to my attention. The report raises concerns about access to GP services and the impact on attendances at urgent care services; and requirements for in-person triage of patients attending urgent care services by a doctor or Advanced Practitioner. In considering your report, officials within the Department of Health and Social Care have made enquiries with NHS England and concluded that these concerns are more appropriately addressed by NHS England directly. I am advised that NHS England will therefore provide you with a full and comprehensive response on the concerns you have raised. I hope this response is helpful

Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Trust

NHS Trust
PDF
AI-classified response stance Action Planned
AI-generated response summary

The Trust apologised for the delay in responding to multiple PFD notices and is implementing measures to strengthen internal processes for managing statutory correspondence. These measures include enhanced oversight, clearer ownership, and improved monitoring to ensure future deadlines are met promptly.

View full response
Dear HM Coroner RE: Delays in responding to Prevention of Future Deaths Notices I am writing on behalf of Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS FT and Stockport NHS FT to offer our sincere apologies for the delay in providing a response to the Prevention of Future Deaths Notices issued following the inquests into the deaths of Mrs. Winifred Wardle; Mrs. Margaret Murphy; Mrs. Judith Marsland; Mrs. Catherine Kirkham and Mrs. Paula Ivers. We fully recognise the importance of Prevention of Future Deaths Notices and the vital role they play in identifying learning, promoting improvements, and helping to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. We also acknowledge our statutory responsibility to provide a timely response to the concerns raised by the Court. We regret that our responses have not been submitted within the required timeframes. The delays were not intended to diminish the significance of the matters raised and we appreciate that it may have caused concern and inconvenience to the Court. We have reviewed the circumstances that led to the delays and are implementing measures to strengthen our internal processes. These include enhanced oversight of statutory correspondence, clearer ownership and accountability for responses, and improved monitoring arrangements to ensure that future deadlines are identified, tracked, and met promptly. Please be assured that we have taken the concerns outlined in the Prevention of Future Deaths Notices issued seriously and have carefully considered the actions required in responses. We remain committed to working openly and constructively with the Coroner's Office and to learning from the issues identified. Once again, I would like to express our sincere apologies for the delay and thank the Court for its patience and understanding.

NHS England

NHS / Health Body
PDF
AI-classified response stance Action Planned
AI-generated response summary

NHS England plans to amend the 2026/27 GP contract to mandate same-day handling of clinically urgent requests and prevent practices from asking patients to call back. Regarding SDEC streaming, it states that national guidance exists but does not prescribe a universal face-to-face review by an experienced doctor or advanced practitioner, allowing for local flexibility.

View full response
Dear Mr Morris, Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Paula Ivers who died on 8th March 2024. Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 18th June 2026 concerning the death of Paula Ivers on 8th March 2024. In advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my deep condolences to Ms Iver’s family and loved ones. NHS England is keen to assure the family and yourself that the concerns raised about Ms Iver’s care have been listened to and reflected upon. Your report raised the following concerns:
1. The inability of some patients to obtain GP appointments
2. There is no national requirement for an early face to face review by an experienced doctor or Advanced Practitioner prior to the streaming of a patient in the Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) Unit.
1. GP appointment availability General practice is the front door of the NHS and we are committed to ensuring that it can continue to deliver for patients now and in the future. We have agreed a number of changes to the GP contract requirements in 2026/27 to continue to build on changes made over recent years, particularly those that have improved access for patients and to ensure patients are seen in a timely manner Good patient communication is key to the general practice relationship with patients from the first point of contact. In the changes made to the GP contract in 2026/27 we have amended the contract to explicitly require that requests identified as clinically urgent, as determined by the GP practice, must be dealt with on the same day. This is intended to support timely access to care for patients where delay may result in harm or deterioration. B6

[Page 2] Requests identified as clinically urgent by a GP or the practice team must be dealt with on the same day. It is for the GP practice to determine which patients are clinically urgent, in the same way they do now. The decision about whether a patient’s need is clinically urgent is a prospective judgement made on the basis of the information available at the point of first assessment, rather than a retrospective assessment made with the benefit of later information. A practice taking appropriate clinical action on the same day does not necessarily mean a face-to-face GP appointment. The practice must take appropriate action, which might be to:
• invite the patient to attend an appointment;
• provide appropriate advice or care;
• direct the patient to appropriate services; or
• communicate with the patient to request further information, or to explain when and how the patient will receive further information In addition to the changes we have made to the GP contract in 2026/27 we have included a requirement that practices must not ask patients to call back, or make contact on another day. By this, we mean that practices should have arrangements in place to ensure that patients are able to make contact with the practice and have their request appropriately managed without being asked to re-contact the practice on a subsequent day. The purpose of this is to ensure timely access and reduce unnecessary barriers for patients seeking care or advice. It is recognised that practices may not be able to resolve every patient query immediately, particularly when this is not clinically or operationally appropriate. In such cases, practices should communicate clearly with patients, which should include taking account of their language and communication needs, about expected response times and the steps being taken to address their needs and keep patients updated as required. The appropriate response must be to either; invite the patient for an appointment (in person, by telephone, or via online/video consultation); provide advice or care by another method; signpost the patient to appropriate alternative services or communicate with the patient to request further information or advise them when and how they will receive additional details. Practices should use their professional judgement to determine the most suitable response based on the specific circumstances and clinical urgency. Where practices experience sustained or significant capacity or demand pressures, they should use established escalation and support routes through their integrated care board (ICB), to raise their operational pressures and access support. B7

[Page 3] The NHS England North West region team have been in contact with Greater Manchester ICB who have advised that patients in Greater Manchester can access General Practice through a range of routes, including face-to-face, telephone and online appointments. Access is available across seven days through core hours and enhanced access arrangements. The ICB continues to support practices to improve access for patients through quality improvement initiatives, including the GP Excellence Programme and engagement with Peer Ambassadors, which focus on the principles of delivering Modern General Practice. The latest GP Patient Survey results for Greater Manchester indicate:
• 79% of patients reported a good overall experience of their GP practice, an increase of 2% from 2025 and 2% above the England average.
• More than 50% of patients reported using online GP services, including booking appointments online, and over half reported that it was easy to contact their practice using the NHS App.
• Across telephone, practice website and NHS App contact routes, between 58% and 63% of patients reported that it was generally easy to contact their practice.
• 74% of patients reported a good overall experience of NHS dental services, an increase of 1% from 2025.
• 89% of patients reported a good overall experience of pharmacy services, an increase of 1% from 2025.
2. Requirement for face to face review by an experienced doctor or advanced practitioner NHS England recognises the importance of patients being assessed and directed to the most appropriate care pathway safely and promptly, and the concern raised regarding variation in local approaches to streaming patients to SDEC. There is national guidance in place to support a consistent approach. This includes the Guidance for emergency departments: initial assessment, the Model Emergency Department: high performing urgent and emergency care pathways and national SDEC guidance. Together, these set out expectations for timely clinical assessment, safe streaming and appropriate clinical decision-making, including access to senior clinical expertise where required. The guidance is intended to ensure that patients are directed to the service best able to meet their clinical needs, while allowing some flexibility for providers to design pathways that reflect their local services, population demographics and workforce. The national guidance does not prescribe a requirement for every patient to receive a substantive face-to-face review by an experienced doctor or Advanced Practitioner before being streamed to SDEC. However, providers are expected to ensure that their local arrangements are clinically safe, appropriately governed and supported by staff with the appropriate skills and competencies. Patients whose presentation requires B8

[Page 4] further assessment or senior clinical input should be identified through the initial (or subsequent) assessment process and have access to this promptly. NHS England will continue to support providers in implementing the national urgent and emergency care and SDEC guidance, with patient safety and timely access to appropriate clinical expertise at the centre of these arrangements. The GIRFT Clinical Operational Standards for Emergency Care recommends that patients are assessed early and receive timely clinical decision-making from appropriately senior clinical decision-makers. The NHS England North West regional Urgent and Emergency Care (UEC) team have advised that the region are currently working through the implementation of these standards as part of a series of improvement programmes with GIRFT colleagues across the North-West. I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Ms Ivers, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action. Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 7 August 2024, an inquest was opened into the death of Paula Ivers who died at home on 8 March 2024 aged 47 years.

A post mortem examination determined Ms Ivers died as a consequence of:

1)a) Haemopericardium 1 )b) Aortic dissection due to cystic medial degeneration.

The inquest concluded on 1 7 June 2026. At the end of the inquest, I recorded the following Narrative Conclusion: Paula Ivers died as a consequence of complications arisingfrom an undiagnosed, and therefore untreated, aortic dissection three days after her discharge from a hospital Same Day Emergency Care unit with a diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Ms Ivers’s death was contributed to by neglect.
Circumstances of the death
Paula Ivers died at home on 8 March 2024 as a consequence of complications arisingfrom an undiagnosed aortic dissection.

Ms Ivers attended the Emergency Department at Tameside General Hospital, Ashton-under-Lyne, on 5 March 2024 having experienced increasing chest pain radiating to her back since the previous evening. Following triage, an ECG which was considered to be normal, and a paper-based review by the streaming Consultant, Ms Ivers’s care was transferred to the Same Day Emergency Care unit (‘SDEC’).

In SDEC, Ms Ivers’s observations were repeated, and she was seen by a junior doctor who took a history, examined her, and arranged fora Chest X-Ray and additional blood tests. The results of all observations and investigations were considered to be normal, save for her heart rate which was elevated when measured and her CRP which was slightly raised.

Notwithstanding the nature and extent of the pain reported, and a familialhistory of early cardiac death, Ms Ivers was discharged homethe same day forGPfollow up with a diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, safety-netting advice, and a prescription for Omeprazole. The possibility of thoracic aortic dissection as an explanation for Ms Ivers’s symptoms was not considered by the doctors who reviewed her presentation in SDEC and as such, no CT Angiogram was undertaken priorto discharge.

Had this investigation been undertaken, it is likely the underlying condition which ultimately led to Ms Ivers’s death would have been identified leading to her transfer to a specialist centre for emergency surgery which she probably would have survived.
Action should be taken
In myopinion unless action is taken to address the above concerns then there is a significant riskof future deaths and 1believe each of you have the power to take such action.
Copies sent to
I can confirm I have sent the report to[please do not use individual’s names, but instead roles/titles]2)  CareQuality Commission; andSIGNATURE [REDACTED]Paula IversPrevention of future deaths report20260409_PublishedDownload

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Report details

Reference
2026-0409
Date of report
26 August 2026
Coroner
Chris Morris
Coroner area
Manchester South

Responses identified

Responses identified 4 of 2
All listed responses identified

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 21 Oct 2026 (stated in the report).

Sent to

NHS England
Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Trust

Source links