Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025

Quy Thi Pham

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0425, written 11 Aug 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report11 Aug 2025
Reference2025-0425
DeceasedQuy Thi Pham
CoronerSonia Hayes
Coroner areaEssex
CategoryCommunity health care and emergency services 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 (1) 

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

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1.  NHS Improvement - NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHS CSP) 

2.  National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

1 

2 

3 

4 

CORONER 

I am Sonia Hayes, Area Coroner, for the coroner area of Essex 

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. 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On 24 September 2024 , I commenced an investigation into the death of QUY 
THIS PHAM, AGE 29 . The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest 
on 5 August 2025. The conclusion of the inquest was 1a Metastatic 
Pulmonary Hypertension 1b Cervical Carcinoma. Narrative: Natural Causes: 
Quy Thi Pham died of an extremely rare but recognised and rapid progression 
of an early-stage cervical cancer resulting in tumour cells impacted within the 
small pulmonary vasculature that caused her death. 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Quy Thi Pham died on 3 September 2024 at Basildon Hospital of Metastatic 
Pulmonary Hypertension due to Cervical Carcinoma approximately 5 months 
post-partum. Ms Pham had been called for routine cervical screening during 
her pregnancy on 2 occasions and was informed according to guidance that 
she needed to wait until she was 12-weeks post-partum, and this was 
repeated on 6 June 2024 when Ms Pham again attended. The GP surgery 
made an appointment for 5 July by text that was not acknowledged. A 
rescheduled appointment for 25 July 2024 was cancelled by the surgery due 
to staff shortages and was not rebooked. Ms Pham attended her GP surgery 
on 2 September 2024 with a several days history of pleuritic chest pain and 
shortness of breath and Ms Pham was sent to Basildon Hospital where she 
was treated for suspected pulmonary embolism. Ms Pham had low blood 
pressure with tachycardia and tests confirmed signs of right heart strain with 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 suspicion of pulmonary embolism with sub-optimal scan due to breathing 
difficulties. Ms Pham continued to deteriorate and was admitted to intensive 
care on 3 September where she went into cardiac arrest that did not respond 
to treatment including thrombolysis. Ms Pham was found on post-mortem to 
have a heavy load of metastatic tumour cells that had impacted in the 
pulmonary vasculature that had spread from an early-stage cervical primary 
tumour that caused right heart strain. This led to cardiac arrest that was 
irreversible. 
Natural Causes: Quy Thi Pham died of an extremely rare but recognised and 
rapid progression of an early-stage cervical cancer resulting in tumour cells 
impacted within the small pulmonary vasculature that caused her death.  

5 

CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters 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 MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows.  –  

(1)  Ms Pham had received 2 alerts for a routine smear test when pregnant 
and attended the GP surgery. Ms Pham was informed that she should 
wait  until  she  was  post-partum  according  to  the  National  Cervical 
Screening Guidance.  

(2)  Ms  Pham  attended  the  GP  surgery  at  approximately  9  weeks  post-
partum and was informed that she must wait until she was at least 12 
weeks  post-partum  to  have  her  smear.  This  appointment  was  then 
cancelled due to staff shortages.  

(3)  The Trust hospital Consultant explained that the most important factor 
to  diagnose  a  patient  is  having  a  smear  test  and  that  it  was  not 
prohibited to have a smear test at 9-weeks post-partum, especially if a 
patient had not had a previous smear test, as in the case of Ms Pham 
who  had  an  early-stage  cervical  cancer  with  no  infiltration  into 
surrounding organs or structures.  

(4)  The Trust hospital Consultant had raised concerns about the National 
Cervical  Screening  Guidance  in  the  past  and  that  may  mean  that  a 
cohort of women may be excluded:  

i. 

ii. 

The  national  guidance  to  identify  post-cotidal  bleeding  as  a 
symptom  of concern for cervical cancer  may  not  be  helpful  as 
not all post-partum women have resumed coitus 
Post-partum  lochia  can  persist  or  be  misinterpreted,  meaning 
that bleeding may not be understood as abnormal 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iii. 

iv. 

v. 

Women may not have a regular menstrual cycle, and bleeding 
may not be easy to identify as intermenstrual in accordance with 
the national guidance to give rise to a cause for concern 
Rare  complications  of  early-stage  cervical  cancer  may  not 
always manifest with symptoms of bleeding 
Not all women residing in the UK have had the HPV vaccine 

Those providing cervical screening services may be strictly applying the 
national  guidelines  and,  with  the  proposed  changes  in  National 
Screening this may increase the risk for women identified above.  

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

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

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this 
report, namely by 6 October 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. 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

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

•  Family  
•  Mid & South Essex NHS Trust  
•  GP 

I have also sent it to: 
Care Quality Commission 
Royal College of General Practitioners  
Pathologist 

who may find it useful or of interest. 

The  Chief  Coroner  may  publish  either  or  both  in  a  complete  or  redacted  or 
summary  form.  She  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. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 August 2025 

HM Area Coroner for Essex Sonia Hayes 

4

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 NHS England (PDF)
Ms Sonia Hayes 
Area Coroner 
Essex and Thurrock Coroner’s Service,  
Essex County Council,  
Seax House,  
Victoria Road South,  
Chelmsford,  
CM1 1QH 

National Medical Director  
NHS England  
Wellington House 
133-155 Waterloo Road  
London 
SE1 8UG 

6 October 2025  

Dear Coroner, 

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Quy Thi Pham who died 
on DATE.  

Thank  you  for  your  Report  to  Prevent  Future  Deaths  (hereafter  “Report”)  dated  11 
August 2025 concerning the death of Quy Thi Pham on 3 September 2024. In advance 
of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express 
my deep condolences to Quy’s family and loved ones. NHS England is keen to assure 
the family and yourself that the concerns raised about Quy’s care have been listened 
to and reflected upon.   

Your  report  raised  concerns  relating  to  the  existing  National  Cervical  Screening 
Guidance for pregnant women. In particular, you highlighted the Trust  Consultant’s 
concerns  that  the  Guidance  may  mean  that  a  cohort  of  women  may  be  excluded, 
specifically in relation to bleeding as a symptom of concern. This is because not all 
post-partum  women  have  resumed  coitus  (leading  to  post-coital  bleeding),  post-
partum bleeding can persist or be misinterpreted and therefore not understood to be 
abnormal, and women in general may not have a regular menstrual cycle making it 
difficult  to  diagnose  bleeding.  In  addition,  rare  complications  of  early  stage  cervical 
cancer may not always manifest with bleeding symptoms. 

The Cervical Screening Programme 

The aim of the national cervical screening programme is to detect asymptomatic cell 
changes in the cervix that could, if left untreated, develop into cervical cancer in the 
future.  The  screening  programme  guidance  for  patients  with  unusual  bleeding  or 
gynaecological  symptoms  they  are  concerned  about  is  always  to  seek  advice  from 
their  GP.  A  cervical  screening  test  is  not  an  appropriate  tool  to  investigate  these 
concerns as it is not a diagnostic test. 

Based  on  the  information  within  your  Report,  it  appears  that  the  NHS  Cervical 
Screening Programme guidance was followed in Quy’s situation. The guidance is that 

                                                                                                                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 screening should be delayed if it is less that 3 months since the person gave birth, as 
the  results  may  not  be  reliable  due  to  the  disruption  to  the  epithelium  of  the  cervix 
during birth and so could be falsely reassuring if a normal result is issued.  

Screening programme advice on the management of abnormal bleeding is available: 
Abnormal  vaginal  bleeding  in  women  under  25:  clinical  assessment  -  GOV.UK  and 
Cervical screening: programme and colposcopy management - GOV.UK (individuals 
with symptoms and cervical screening in pregnancy).  

Based on the clinical history provided which has been reviewed by clinical experts who 
support  NHS  England’s  cervical  screening  team,  Quy  suffered  from  an  aggressive 
form of cervical cancer which metastasised to the lungs at presentation. It is accepted 
that unusual and rapidly developing cervical cancers are unlikely to be prevented by 
screening. Even if Quy had received post-natal screening in July 2024, on the balance 
of  probabilities,  Quy  would  still  have  had  an  aggressive  cervical  cancer  with  lung 
metastases which, sadly, would still have been incurable. 

There is research underway supported by the cervical screening programme to collect 
evidence on whether it is safe, accurate and reliable to report cervical screening tests 
within 3 months of birth. This research is expected to conclude by September 2027. 
When the findings of this research are available, NHS England will consider them and 
update national guidance accordingly. 

GP Surgery Key Learnings 

I understand that Quy’s GP Surgery undertook a comprehensive review of her records 
and completed a Significant Event Analysis.  

The  key  learnings  highlighted  by  the  surgery  include  the  introduction  of  mandatory 
prompts  during  postnatal  checks  to  ask  and  record  bleeding  symptoms.  Whilst 
completing new baby registrations, administrators will now check and book maternal 
postnatal and cervical screening appointments. Training on screening has also been 
undertaken,  including the  clarification  of  the referral  pathway  for abnormal bleeding 
which should trigger urgent gynaecological referral and not screening.  

In  addition,  the  surgery  will  flag  vulnerable  groups  in  their  records  (e.g.  language 
barriers,  never-screened,  immunocompromised)  and  apply  tailored  communication 
strategies to ensure equitable access to screening.  

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 Quy, 
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.  

Yours sincerely,  

National Medical Director 
NHS England
Response from Nice (PDF)
3rd floor 
3 Piccadilly Place 
Manchester 
M1 3BN 
United Kingdom 

24 September 2025  

Ms Sonia Hayes 
HM Area Coroner for Essex 
Seax House 
Victoria Road South 
Chelmsford 
Essex 
CM1 1QH 

Dear Ms Hayes 

Re: Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Deaths Report (Quy Thi Pham)  

I write in response to your regulation 28 report dated 11 August 2025 regarding the very sad 
death of Quy Thi Pham. I would like to express my sincere condolences to Quy’s family.   

The patient safety leads at NICE have carefully considered the content of your report and 
understand that your request relates to cervical screening post-partum. 

Firstly, it may be helpful for me to clarify that the recommendation that cervical screening should 
be delayed for women who are less than 12 weeks post-partum does not come from guidance 
produced by NICE, but from Public Health England (PHE) guidelines, ‘Ceasing and deferring 
women from the NHS Cervical Screening Programme  [PHE, 2019]’. We believe that the issues 
raised within your report are therefore best addressed by NHS England’s NHS Cervical 
Screening programme, and I note that your report has also been sent to them.  

As background, this recommendation is referred to in the clinical knowledge summaries (CKS) 
section on cervical screening on the NICE website. CKS are developed by an external company 
called Agilio Software and are designed to summarise the evidence on the treatment of specific 
health conditions, however they do not constitute NICE guidance. We work with the publisher to 
make the CKS available on our website and, while they may refer to NICE guidance (if there is 
any that is relevant), they also use many other sources. They are written for health 
professionals working in primary care (usually GPs) however the guidance is freely available for 
anyone to access.  

We will make Agilio aware of the concerns you raise so that they can check for any updates to 
the NHS Cervical Screening Programme when they next update this topic.  

Although not directly mentioned in your report, it may be helpful for us to also highlight our 
guideline Suspected cancer: recognition and referral (NG12). Section 1.5 deals with 

nice.org.uk | nice@nice.org.uk 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 gynaecological cancers and discussed cervical cancer in recommendation 1.5.13 which 
recommends: 
'Consider a suspected cancer pathway referral for women if, on examination, the appearance of 
their cervix is consistent with cervical cancer’. 

The rationale for that recommendation is on page 169 of the full guideline:  
'The GDG noted that a cervix with an appearance consistent with cervical cancer is likely to be 
a symptom of cervical cancer. The GDG agreed, based on their clinical experience, that had this 
symptom been studied it would have had a positive predictive value of 3% or above. The GDG 
therefore agreed to recommend a suspected cancer pathway referral for this symptom. The 
GDG also discussed the likely PPVs for other symptoms, such as inter-menstrual bleeding, 
post-coital bleeding and vaginal discharge. However, the GDG agreed that these were likely to 
be extremely low as these symptoms are very common and cervical cancer is relatively rare. 
The GDG therefore decided not to make any further recommendations based on symptoms. 
Due to the lack of evidence and the fact that there is no other obvious test for a cervix with an 
appearance consistent with cervical cancer in primary care, the GDG were not able to 
recommend a particular test beyond visual inspection for the primary care investigation of 
cervical cancer.' 

The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful 
consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals and 
practitioners are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual 
needs, preferences and values of their patients or the people using their service. It is not 
mandatory for the NHS to apply the recommendations, and the guideline does not override the 
responsibility to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual, in 
consultation with them and their families and carers or guardian. 

I hope that the information above is helpful and would like to reiterate my sincere condolences 
to Quy’s family.  

Yours sincerely, 

Chief executive 

[Insert footer here] 

2 of 2

Related reports

Other reports by Sonia Hayes

See all →

More reports categorised “Community health care and emergency services related deaths”

See all →

Track Community health care and emergency services related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Community health care and emergency services related deaths, 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.