Nicholas Murphy
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2025-0437
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 16 Oct 2025
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Critical information regarding a patient's refusal of treatment may be missed due to inadequate outcome codes, leading to misleading impressions and hindering proper safeguarding and decision-making.
View full coroner's concerns
From the evidence I heard I am concerned that information critical to safeguarding and proper decision making may be missed, as it was in this case, given that the outcome codes do not include one that reveals the patient refused treatment. I am also concerned that the outcome of ‘advice given’ can give a very misleading impression of events when used in these type of circumstances.
Responses
Action Taken
South Central Ambulance Service has implemented a new outcome code in their CAD system to indicate when a patient has refused treatment or conveyance to hospital, available for immediate use by crews. (AI summary)
South Central Ambulance Service has implemented a new outcome code in their CAD system to indicate when a patient has refused treatment or conveyance to hospital, available for immediate use by crews. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Simpson,
I am writing to you further to my previous letter dated 8th August 2025 in response to concerns you raised following the inquest hearing into the very sad death of Nicholas (Nick) Murphy that concluded on 28th July
2025.
Within my previous letter, I informed you that NHS England produce a nationally mandated list of outcome codes for the CAD system and that this list did not include a code regarding a patient declining treatment. This information was also provided to you at the inquest during the evidence of a witness from the Trust. I am aware that wrote to you on 29th September 2025 to confirm that the information provided to me regarding this issue which informed the response I sent you was incorrect. The information had also been provided to the witness from the inquest hearing, and it was her genuinely held belief at the time that she was giving evidence this information was correct. apologised unreservedly for this error within her letter, and I repeat this apology to you now. Whilst my response was written in good faith, I am aware that the incorrect information within my letter prompted you to write a Regulation 28 report to NHS England and you would not otherwise have done so.
informed you in her letter that she had asked our Head of Clinical Communications and Telemetry to urgently review whether it was possible to add a closure code indicating that a patient has refused treatment or conveyance to hospital to our CAD system. I am pleased to advise that we have now implemented this coding within our system, and it is available for our crews to use immediately.
Once again, I apologise that you were previously provided with the wrong information and the consequence that this had.
I am writing to you further to my previous letter dated 8th August 2025 in response to concerns you raised following the inquest hearing into the very sad death of Nicholas (Nick) Murphy that concluded on 28th July
2025.
Within my previous letter, I informed you that NHS England produce a nationally mandated list of outcome codes for the CAD system and that this list did not include a code regarding a patient declining treatment. This information was also provided to you at the inquest during the evidence of a witness from the Trust. I am aware that wrote to you on 29th September 2025 to confirm that the information provided to me regarding this issue which informed the response I sent you was incorrect. The information had also been provided to the witness from the inquest hearing, and it was her genuinely held belief at the time that she was giving evidence this information was correct. apologised unreservedly for this error within her letter, and I repeat this apology to you now. Whilst my response was written in good faith, I am aware that the incorrect information within my letter prompted you to write a Regulation 28 report to NHS England and you would not otherwise have done so.
informed you in her letter that she had asked our Head of Clinical Communications and Telemetry to urgently review whether it was possible to add a closure code indicating that a patient has refused treatment or conveyance to hospital to our CAD system. I am pleased to advise that we have now implemented this coding within our system, and it is available for our crews to use immediately.
Once again, I apologise that you were previously provided with the wrong information and the consequence that this had.
Sent To
- NHS England
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
16 Oct 2025
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 17 January 2024 I commenced an investigation into the death of Nicholas Paul MURPHY aged 48. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 28 July 2025. The conclusion of the inquest was that: On the 9th January 2024 Nicholas Paul Murphy was found deceased at his home address in Hurstbourne Place, Southampton. He was last seen on the 29th December 2023 when the ambulance service attended his address and he reported that he had taken an overdose. He declined to go to hospital and refused further assessment after which the ambulance staff left.
Circumstances of the Death
Nicholas had struggled with mental health and addiction difficulties for a long time. He reported worsening mental health in 2023 which was impacted by antisocial behaviour around the area of his property and financial difficulties. On the 29th December 2023 he sent an email at 3.09am saying that he had taken an overdose and, at some point, posted a message on Facebook saying that he was attempting to overdose. The post was seen by his family who called 999 and reported this to the police. They were directed to request an ambulance which they did. An ambulance attended Nicholas and the crew were allowed into the property just after 6.30am. He reported to the ambulance crew that he had taken an overdose of at 0.30am. The crew completed physical observations which revealed normal cardiovascular and respiratory functions. He did not display any overt signs of having taken an overdose. Nicholas then withdrew his consent for further assessment and required the ambulance crew to leave. Nicholas was assessed as having mental capacity to make this decision and the crew left the property. The electronic Patient Clinical Report completed by the crew gave an accurate account of these events. However on the call log completed by the ambulance crew the outcome was given as ‘Advice only’. The police contacted the ambulance service later on the 29th December to ask for an update and were advised that the patient had been seen and left at home. The police asked if there were any further concerns and were told that there was nothing to indicate that the attending crew had any concerns. I heard evidence that the police may have visited Nicholas had they been informed of the full circumstances of the crew’s attendance. I also heard evidence that the outcome or disposition codes available for the ambulance crew on the call log are nationally mandated. It is these logs that are readily available to staff in the ambulance service contact centre. The available outcome codes do not include one that states ‘Patient refused treatment/declined transfer to hospital’ or anything similar. In order to access the fuller information the ambulance call centre operator would have to enter more detailed records than those available on the face of the call log. They are under pressure at work and therefore there is a risk that this might not be done as was likely to be the case here. Nicholas was found deceased in his flat on the 9th January 2024 after a further concern for his welfare was raised with the police. He had taken an overdose of It was not possible to establish exactly when Nicholas took the overdose.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Healthcare trust risk information visibility
Southport Inquiry
Inaccurate and inaccessible patient records
Improve perinatal mortality recording
Morecambe Bay Investigation
Inaccurate and inaccessible patient records
Detainee Capture and Condition Records
Al-Sweady Inquiry
Inaccurate and inaccessible patient records
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.