Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2024

Finlay Finlayson

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2024-0162, written 22 Mar 2024. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report22 Mar 2024
Reference2024-0162
DeceasedFinlay Finlayson
CoronerLaura Bradford
Coroner areaEast Sussex
CategoryOther related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published2

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

Regulation 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

NOTE:  This form is to be used after an inquest. 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1  The Phoenix Partnership 
2  EMIS Health 

1  CORONER 

I am Laura BRADFORD, Assistant Coroner for the coroner area of East Sussex 

2  CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 
and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On  04  February  2019  I  commenced  an  investigation  into  the  death  of  Finlay  Stuart  Ian 
FINLAYSON  aged  54.  The  investigation  concluded  at  the  end  of  the  inquest  on  19  March 
2024.  The conclusion of the jury was that: 

Narrative: we the jury consider that Vinney's care was affected by the following issues, the 
absence of which may have delayed or changed the circumstances of his death. There was 
confusion  and uncertainty  about his medical  conditions  caused  by information  sharing  and 
permissions issues with SystmOne, leading to an over reliance on Vinney's own statements. 
Some poor record keeping on SystmOne and confusion over when to reference the system. 
This  affected  both  plans  and  reporting  of  interactions.  Failures  in  communication  between 
agencies  and  shifts,  not  helped  by  the  numbers  of  different  staff  and  agencies  involved, 
high demand and challenging workloads and associated delays in accessing healthcare. This 
was  particularly  relevant  between  21  and  24  January  19.  In  particular  we  note:  a  lack  of 
quantifiable evidence, e.g. NEWS scores or notes of proportionate follow-ups and recorded 
observations  between  21  and  24/1/19  which  may  have  allowed  any  deterioration  in 
Vinney's condition to be missed. On 25/1/19, there was a grave and unacceptable failure in 
communications with two or three emergency radios switched off in contravention of prison 
rules  and  protocols.  This  was  then  compounded  by  a  delay  in  timely  response,  i.e.  the 
proposal  of  a  phone  call  rather  than  an  in-person  response,  which  may  have  been  longer 
had  it  not  been  for  decisive  intervention  from  comms.  This  was  followed  by  unacceptable 
indecision on calling an ambulance, in which perceptions of Vinney's mental health were a 
factor, and should have been automatic on account of his head injury. 

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Vinney died of the causes in section 2 (pulmonary thromboemboli due to deep vein 
thrombosis with a background of metastatic carcinoma of the base of the tongue) following 
cardiac arrest on 25/1/2019 at HMP Lewes (Cell 216 on C-Wing), whilst on remand. He was 
pronounced dead at 9.16am. 

5  CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the investigation my inquiries revealed matters giving rise to concern. 
In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken.  In the 
circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. 
The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows: 

Regulation 28 – After Inquest 
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 

 (brief summary of matters of concern) 

During the course of the Inquest the jury heard evidence about the difficulty in information 
being transferred over from Mr Finlayson's GP surgery system, which uses SystmOne to the 
prison  system  (also  SystmOne).  The  evidence  was  that  information  was  not  able  to  be 
freely shared between the two and it meant that there was a delay in healthcare staff in the 
prison accessing  relevant information  about Mr Finlayson's  long term health issues as well 
to  prision. 
as  contact  with  his  GP  as  recent  as  a  week  before  going 

in 

Mr  Finlayson  sadly  died  in  2019  and  I  have  heard  evidence  that  the  functioning  of 
SystmOne has improved since his death. I was told, however, that there remains an issue 
with  the  interaction  between  SystmOne  and  other  medical  databases  used  in  England  and 
Wales.  SystmOne  appears  to  be  the  preferred  system  for  many  prisons  and  detention 
systems. 
centres  but 

that  use  other 

still  many  GP 

there  are 

surgeries 

I  heard  evidence  that  if  someone  goes  to  prison  and  is  linked  to  a  surgery  that  uses 
another system (like EMIS) the notes have to be printed and scanned on to SystmOne and 
hand. 
key 

information 

someone's 

record 

input 

onto 

has 

be 

by 

to 

I  am  concerned  about  the  potential  delay  this  process  could  cause.  I  am  also  concerned 
that  key  information  could  be  missed  by  virtue  of  these  systems  not  communicating  with 
each other. I have heard evidence as to the importance of someone's medical history being 
available for those within the prison setting to assist with careplanning and the provision of 
appropriate  care  and  in  my  opinion,  there  is  a  risk  that  future  deaths  could  occur  unless 
action is taken to make the transfer of this information more efficient. 

6  ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you (and/or 
your organisation) have the power to take such action. 

7  YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, 
namely by May 17, 2024.  I, the coroner, may extend the period. 

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the 
timetable for action.  Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 

8  COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested 
Persons 

Mr Finlayson’s family 
HMP LEWES 
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust 
Med-Co Secure Healthcare Services Ltd 

I have also sent it to 

NHS England 
Practice Plus Group 

who may find it useful or of interest. 

I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner and all 
interested persons who in my opinion should receive it. 

I may also send a copy of your response to any person who I believe may find it useful or 

Regulation 28 – After Inquest 
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 

 of interest. 

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. 
He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of 
interest. 

You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response about the 
release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 

9  Dated: 22/03/2024 

Laura BRADFORD 
Assistant Coroner for 
East Sussex 

Regulation 28 – After Inquest 
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021

Responses

2 responses published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Emis (PDF)
Fulford Grange 
Micklefield Lane 
Rawdon 
Leeds LS19 6BA 

emishealth.com 

FAO Laura Bradford, Assistant Coroner for East Sussex  

Coroner’s Office (East Sussex),   
Unit 56,  Innovation Centre,  
Highfield Drive, St Leonards on Sea,    
East Sussex,  
TN38 9UH 

16th May 2024 

Ref: Regulation 28 Report 

Dear Ms Bradford, 

We write in response to the Regulation 28 report, dated 22/03/2024 (the “Report”).  

We were saddened to read of the death of Mr Finlayson and would like to take this opportunity to 
express our sincere condolences to his family.  

We have undertaken an internal review of EMIS Web, focussing on the issues raised as areas of concern 
in the Report in relation to EMIS Web, namely a potential lack of interaction between clinical systems 
in prisons (predominantly SystmOne) and other clinical systems in community GP surgeries, and the 
evidence you heard that notes have to be printed and scanned on to SystemOne, with key information 
inputted manually, if an individual’s GP practice uses a clinical system other than SystmOne. 

This review was undertaken by our internal team, including a Product Manager, Clinical Safety Officer, 
and Clinical Director.   

Transfer of Medical Records 

In  2019,  processes  for  transferring  medical  records  from  community  GP  practices  to  the  relevant 
healthcare  teams  within  prisons were  aligned  with  the  NHS  England  specification  for Primary  Care 
Service – Medical and nursing for prisons (latest PDF copy attached).    

At this time, we understand that GP2GP (an interoperability function that enables electronic transfer 
of medical records between clinical systems, introduced by NHS Digital (now NHS England) in 2007) 
was not  integrated into the  prisons’ clinical record systems, which meant  that EMIS was unable to 
utilise GP2GP for medical record transfers. Therefore, EMIS advised sending printed medical records 

EMIS Health is a trading name used by members of the EMIS Group of companies 
which includes Egton Medical Information Systems Limited. 
Egton Medical Information Systems Limited is registered in England and Wales. 
Registered number: 02117205. Registered office: Fulford Grange, Micklefield Lane, Rawdon, Leeds LS19 6BA 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 Fulford Grange 
Micklefield Lane 
Rawdon 
Leeds LS19 6BA 
Tel: 0113 380 3000 
emishealth.com 

via courier, in line with the process adopted by Primary Care Support England, who were responsible 
for moving medical records around the NHS.  

With the implementation of GP2GP in prisons’ clinical record systems in 2021, medical records could 
then  be  transferred  electronically  from  the  relevant  community  GP  practice,  utilising  any  system 
provider, to prisons via GP2GP.  Prisons require a GP Organisation (ODS) code to use the GP2GP service, 
as the ODS code determines where the request is sent and where the medical record is received.  Once 
a patient has registered to a prison’s healthcare system, a 'GP2GP EHR Extract Request' is sent from 
the prison’s clinical system to the patient’s Community GP.  The patient’s community GP can use EMIS 
Web to prepare the record and send it as a 'GP2GP EHR Extract' message.  Once the prison receives 
and reviews the medical record, it is marked as ‘filed’ and the record should be integrated into the 
prison’s clinical system.  The complete GP2GP process can be found in the GP registration digital guide 
here: www.digital.nhs.uk/services/guides/gp-registration.  

EMIS are fully compliant, and have processes in place to remain compliant, with the latest versions of 
the NHS England GP2GP specification.  Therefore, EMIS practices can receive medical record requests 
from prisons and return the requested information via the GP2GP process.  EMIS practices also have 
the option to send printed medical records via courier when medical requests are not received from 
prisons via GP2GP (at the prison’s discretion).  In either scenario, EMIS would not have any control 
over whether the prison requests the medical records via the GP2GP process, or via a manual process.  

Conclusion 

We  understand  that  the  prisons  and  the  clinical  system  providers  involved  have  implemented  the 
GP2GP process into prison systems since 2021, and as such, should a prison request medical records 
from a community GP practice utilising EMIS Web, there should be no reason why a transfer of medical 
records wouldn’t complete in an appropriate and timely manner (if the correct process for utilising 
GP2GP is followed).  

As detailed above, EMIS is compliant with NHS England GP2GP specifications, and we will continue to 
review our solutions to determine whether any performance improvements can be made. However, 
based on the information provided in the Report, and our subsequent review, we do not believe in this 
instance there are any software developments, beyond the existing functionality in the System, that 
are required to mitigate the specific risks raised in the Report.   

EMIS Health is a trading name used by members of the EMIS Group of companies 
which includes Egton Medical Information Systems Limited. 
Egton Medical Information Systems Limited is registered in England and Wales. 
Registered number: 02117205. Registered office: Fulford Grange, Micklefield Lane, Rawdon, Leeds LS19 6BA 

 
 
 Fulford Grange 
Micklefield Lane 
Rawdon 
Leeds LS19 6BA 
Tel: 0113 380 3000 
emishealth.com 

When needed, EMIS Web users have access to learning / training materials, including those materials 
regarding  GP2GP,  should  they  need  to  revisit  how  to  prepare  and  send  medical  records  to  other 
healthcare facilities.  Users are also able to contact EMIS support for any further guidance. 

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we trust that the details outlined above assist.  

Kind regards, 

Chief Medical Officer 

EMIS Health is a trading name used by members of the EMIS Group of companies 
which includes Egton Medical Information Systems Limited. 
Egton Medical Information Systems Limited is registered in England and Wales. 
Registered number: 02117205. Registered office: Fulford Grange, Micklefield Lane, Rawdon, Leeds LS19 6BA
Response from Tpp (PDF)
Mrs Laura Bradford 
Assistant Coroner East Sussex 

Thursday, 28 March 2024 

Dear Ms Bradford 

Regulation 28 report regarding Finlay Stuart Ian FINLAYSON 

Thank you for your Regulation 28 report dated 22 March 2024 concerning the death of Finlay Stuart 
Ian Finlayson on 25 January 2019.  

Firstly, I would like to express my deep condolences to the family and friends of Mr Finlayson on his 
tragic death. 

Your report addresses the sharing of patient information between healthcare providers in the NHS. 
This is a complex area. SystmOne was created 25 years ago specifically to support the provision of a 
shared electronic health record for the patient wherever they were receiving care, initially between 
GPs, an out of hours service and the local hospital, in Keighley, West Yorkshire. The system is now in 
use  in  multiple  other  healthcare  settings  across  the  country  and  is  the  national  system  for  the 
detained estate in England and Wales. 

Your report highlights that information was not freely shared between the GP (using SystmOne) and 
the prison service. Functionality to allow seamless sharing of data is available within SystmOne, and 
this  functionality  was  available  to  the  detained  estate  (including  prisons)  from  well  before  2019. 
However, as is still the case, the sharing of data is dependent on the data controller (in this case the 
GP) permitting the data to be made available to other healthcare organisations. This responsibility is 
set out in UK Data Protection Legislation. Without the control in SystmOne being turned on by the GP 
data controller (and a reciprocal control on the receiving side being enabled) the data is not visible. 
Dame Fiona Caldicott and other data champions have tried to make information sharing ‘the norm’ 
but there is still resistance in many areas. If the controls that exist within SystmOne to facilitate data 
sharing had been enabled, Mr Finlayson’s entire SystmOne GP record would have been available to 
the prison service.  

Since the time of Mr Finlayson’s death, more has been done to improve matters. Full GP registration 
(‘GMS’) has been introduced into prisons in the last two years as a result of policy change by NHS 
England. Functionality was enabled by TPP to enact this policy change. As a result, prisoners can now 
opt  to  have  their  community  GP  registration  (and  their  community  GP  record)  transferred  to  the 
prison GP. This involves the automatic electronic transfer of the full community GP record to the 
prison  GP,  which  is  then  transferred  out  again  on  release  of  the  prisoner  to  the  community  GP 
practice. This is an enormous improvement. This change applies regardless of whether the community 
GP practice uses SystmOne or EMIS.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 If  you  require  any  further  information  please  let  me  know.  I  would  be  happy  to  demonstrate  the 
processes described if at all helpful. 

Yours sincerely 

Clinical Director TPP 
GMC 2672881

Related reports

Other reports by Laura Bradford

See all →

More reports categorised “Other related deaths”

See all →

Track Laura Bradford

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Laura Bradford, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.