Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025

Jack Shields

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0122, written 4 Mar 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report4 Mar 2025
Reference2025-0122
DeceasedJack Shields
CoronerDavid Place
Coroner areaSunderland
CategoryEmergency services related deaths (2019 onwards)
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

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

David Place 
Senior Coroner for the City of Sunderland 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

Director of Operations of The Nerams Group 

1 

CORONER 

I am David Place, His Majesty’s Senior Coroner for the City of Sunderland 

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. 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/schedule/5/paragraph/7 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1629/part/7/made 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On 15th January 2025 I commenced an Investigation into the death of Mr Jack Matthew 
Shields, who was born on 17th May 1994 and who died at 
, Sunderland 
on 28th April 2024 aged 29 years. The Investigation concluded at the end of the Inquest on 
25th February 2025. 

The narrative conclusion of the Inquest was ‘Deterioration of a heart condition whilst an 
ambulance allocation was significantly delayed following a missed opportunity to assign 
an earlier available ambulance’. 

The medical cause of death was: - 
Ia Heart Failure 
II Aortic Dissection 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Jack Matthew Shields was a 29 year old male with a past medical history outlining 
extensive heart conditions. Jack had three previous open-heart surgeries including aortic 
dissection. 

On the evening of 27th April 2024 Jack experienced shortness of breath, and his mother 
called 999 at 23:14hrs that night. This was categorised as Cat 2. Following a clinician 
callback at 00:27am on 28th April 2024 an ambulance was allocated at 00:31am and 
arrived on scene at 00:36am. This was over an hour later than the national average 
response time for Cat 2 patients. 

HM Coroner’s Courts, City Hall, Plater Way, Sunderland SR1 3AA 
Tel 0191 5617843 
email: coroner@sunderland.gov.uk    |    web: www.sunderlandcoroner.co.uk 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 It later transpired after an investigation by NEAS following Jack’s death, that another 
ambulance had been available at 23:24am and, if allocated, would have arrived on scene 
at 23:36hrs on 27th April 2024. 

At 00:52 on 28th April 2024 an amber backup request was made, and a rapid response 
paramedic arrived at 01:07am. A third crew arrived at 01:36am, but Jack had already 
deteriorated into a cardiac arrest. The backup request was incorrectly categorised by the 
crew as Jack’s condition was clearly deteriorating, and he was acutely unwell due to 
reducing blood pressure over a short time, tachycardia and an ECG revealed an ST-
Elevated Myocardial Infarction. He required a higher priority backup. 

Jack died at his home address of 
resuscitation attempts with his death declared at 02:27am on 28th April 2024. 

, Sunderland despite extensive 

5 

CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the Inquest the evidence revealed a matter giving rise to concern. In 
my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the 
circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. 

The MATTER OF CONCERN is: – 

At 00:36am on 28th April 2024 the first ambulance arrived at the scene, which was 1 hour 
and 22 minutes following the initial call being received. This was a technician led dual 
crew ambulance provided by NERAMS - a third-party provider. The crew informed the 
Emergency Operations Centre at 00:52am on 28th April 2024 that an amber request for 
paramedic assistance was required. A rapid response paramedic arrived at the scene at 
01:07am on 28th April 2024. Unfortunately, Jack deteriorated into a cardiac arrest and 
despite resuscitative efforts, he was declared deceased at 02:27am on 28th April 2024. 

The evidence was clear that Jack’s condition at the time of the first ambulance arrival at 
00:36am was such that a higher priority backup should have been requested. Jack was 
symptomatic of cardiogenic shock with descending blood pressures, shortness of breath, 
nausea and vomiting, and required the highest priority backup of Cat 1 (Peri Arrest). 

I am concerned that the crew should have recognised the deteriorating condition when 
considering relevant observations such as ECG interpretation, an early recognition of such 
a deterioration and a correct categorisation of a backup request may have led to rapid 
stabilisation and transportation to definitive care. I shall be glad to be told of any learning 
arising from this death and timescales and results of your review. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you 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 30th April 2025. 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. 

Page 2 of 3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested 
Persons: - 
•  Family 
•  North East Ambulance Services and their Solicitors 
•  Care Quality Commission 

I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. 

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 this 4th day of March 2025 

Signature:
HM Senior Coroner for the City of Sunderland 

Page 3 of 3

Responses

1 response 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 The Nerams Group (PDF)
The Nerams Group 

Head Office and Training Facility,  

Durham Road, 

Chilton, 

County Durham,  

DL17 0EW  

Dear HM Coroner, 

I write to you in response to your request for further information, lessons learned and mitigations following the death of 
Jack Matthew Shields Deceased on the 27th of April 2024. 

We were notified of this event from the Northeast Ambulance Service following a concern raised against an employee of 
ours at the time. The concerns surrounded the lack of identification of the clinical presentation of the patient at the time 
of attendance and that a higher category of backup should have been requested. 

The crew consisted of a double Technician crew; 
(Emergency Care Technician), both of whom held a level of qualification which should have allowed them to have 
recognised the presentation and initiate treatment. 

 (Advanced Technician) and 

Upon investigation of the events, it was identified that there were significant failings on the part of 
not be rationally justified. 

 was the senior clinician who was responsible for the patient care.  

 which could 

During the hearing, 
when shown to him again, as a result of this and due to another unrelated identified clinical concern, 
dismissed due to gross negligence. 

 was also terminated due to unrelated employment reasons. 

 was still unable to identify the concerning features of the case and key features of the ECG 

 was 

Appropriate referrals to both the Northeast Ambulance Service to allow them to monitor his ongoing employment on 
their contracts should he attempt to apply for them or work for a different company as well as statutory notifications to 
the CQC were made immediately following this incident investigation. 

Lessons learned were identified throughout the course of the investigation, immediate mitigation to ensure that all 
non-registered Healthcare Professionals who read 12 lead ECGs have refreshed competency through assessment and 
CPD has been implemented as well as information circulated to all staff to highlight the various categories of backup 
available as well as the appropriateness of each.  

Should you require more information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Clinical Operations Manager

Related reports

Other reports by David Place

See all →

More reports categorised “Emergency services related deaths (2019 onwards)”

See all →

Track Emergency services related deaths (2019 onwards)

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Emergency services related deaths (2019 onwards), 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.