Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2026

Peter Coates

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2026-0154, written 23 Mar 2026. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report23 Mar 2026
Reference2026-0154
DeceasedPeter Coates
CoronerPaul Appleton
Coroner areaTeesside and Hartlepool
CategoryOther related deaths · Emergency services related deaths (2019 onwards)
Organisation namedNorth East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

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

This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

Regulation 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:

1.  NHS England

1  CORONER

I am Mr Paul M Appleton, HM Area Coroner for the Coroner Area of Teesside & Hartlepool.

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 15 March 2019 an investigation was commenced into the death of Peter COATES, aged 62
(born 13.04.1956).  The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 20.03.2026.  The
conclusion of the inquest was a narrative conclusion as follows:

“Peter died due to complications of Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, with his
death contributed to by the consequences of Obesity.  Peter would not have died when he did, in
the absence of an unplanned electrical power supply failure to his home address which caused
his mains operated, bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) and oxygen concentrator equipment
to stop working.”

I found Peter’s medical cause of death to be:

1a) Complications of Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
2) Obesity.

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

Peter Coates’ past medical history included Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(“COPD”)  and  Obesity.  Peter  sadly  died  at  his  home  address  of  42  Boulby  Road,  Redcar  on
14.03.2019.

Due to the severity of his COPD, Peter was reliant on at home, mains operated, clinical equipment,
namely a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machine and an oxygen concentrator.

At 03:57 on 14.03.2019, Peter’s home address lost electrical power due to an unplanned electrical
power supply failure.

At 04:01, Peter contacted 999 and spoke to a Health Advisor at the North East Ambulance Service
NHS Foundation Trust. During this telephone call, information provided by Peter included that: he
had COPD and used an oxygen machine but there had been a power cut, he was struggling to
breathe, could not reach his portable oxygen cylinders, and was home alone. Peter also confirmed
the approximate location of, and the code for, a key safe at his home address. The key safe code
was  included  in  the  crew  notes  subsequently  made  available  to  the  attending  Paramedics;
however, the approximate key safe location was not included in the crew notes.

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

 This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

A category 2 emergency ambulance response was assigned to Peter. I heard that the  national
Ambulance  Response  Programme  requires,  for  category  2  responses,  an  overall  average
response time within 18 minutes, and a response to 90% of category 2 calls within 40 minutes.

An  ambulance  crew  was  allocated  to  Peter  at  04:04.  That  ambulance  crew  had  an  expected
journey time to Peter’s home address of 1 minute and 37 seconds. That ambulance crew was,
however,  unable  to  depart  from  the  ambulance  station,  due  to  the  power  failure  meaning  the
electrically  powered  station  gates  would  not  open,  with  relevant  staff  being  unaware  of  how  to
manually open the station gates.

At 04:15, the category 2 emergency ambulance response to Peter was reallocated to a different
ambulance crew. That ambulance crew, whilst travelling to Peter’s home address, stopped at a
petrol garage to refuel at 04:23, leaving the petrol garage at 04:27, and arriving at Peter’s home
address at 04:38. Following their arrival, the attending ambulance crew were initially unable to find
the key safe and/or gain access to Peter’s property. Having located the key safe, the ambulance
crew  gained  entry  to  Peter’s  property  at  or  around  04:48  and  shortly  thereafter  found  Peter  to
sadly  be  deceased  on  his  bed.  It  was  noted  by  the  attending  ambulance  crew  that  Peter  had
obtained a portable oxygen cylinder, which was not dependent on a mains electricity supply, and
which was delivering oxygen via a nasal cannula.

The electrical power supply to Peter’s property was restored at 05:14 on 14.03.2019.

Peter  died  due  to  complications  of  Very  Severe  COPD,  with  his  death  contributed  to  by  the
consequences  of  Obesity.    Peter  would  not  have  died  when  he  did,  in  the  absence  of  the
unplanned electrical power supply failure.
Peter’s death was possibly contributed to by delays in the arrival of the ambulance crew to him.

I heard evidence at the inquest hearing that a category 1 emergency ambulance response could
not have been generated for Peter, as he was breathing and conscious at the time of the 04:01
999 telephone call.

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:

In respect of the National Ambulance Response Programme, I understand from the evidence
that:

-  Category 1 is an immediate response to a life-threatening condition. It should only be
used for a patient who requires resuscitation or emergency intervention from the
ambulance service, for example, a patient who is in cardiac or respiratory arrest.
Mortality rates are high where a difference of one minute in response time is likely to
affect outcome and there is evidence to support the fastest response. The national
standard is for 90% of Category 1 patients to have received a response within 15
minutes; and for the overall average response time to be within 7 minutes.

-  Category 2 is for serious conditions, for example stroke or chest pain, that may require
rapid assessment and/or urgent transport. Mortality rates are lower; a difference of an
extra 15 minutes’ response time is unlikely to affect outcome and there is evidence to
support an early dispatch. The national standard is for 90% of patients to have received

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

 This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

a response within 40 minutes; and for the overall average response time to be within 18
minutes.

My concern is that there are circumstances in which a patient is not, at the time a 999 call is
made to request an Ambulance, in a condition such as cardiac or respiratory arrest; but where
an immediate response is still required on the basis that delay in ambulance attendance could
pose a risk to their life. That is, I am concerned that there is a category of patients who do not
meet the criteria for a category 1 response, but who do nonetheless require an immediate
response, and that there is, therefore, a “gap” between categories 1 and 2. This includes for
patients who are alone at the time of calling 999 and who are therefore unable to update the
Ambulance Service should they progress to cardiac or respiratory arrest.

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 18 May 2026.  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:

1.  Peter’s Family.
2.  North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.

I have also sent it to:

1.  Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE).

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 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 she 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: 23 March 2026

Mr Paul M Appleton
HM Area Coroner for the Coroner Area of Teesside & Hartlepool.

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

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 Nhse (PDF)
Mr Paul M Appleton 
HM Area Coroner for Teesside & Hartlepool 
Middlesbrough Town Hall 
Albert Road 
Middlesbrough 
TS1 2QJ 

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

6th May 2026 

Dear Coroner, 

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Peter Coates who died on 
14th March 2019  

Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated  23rd 
March 2026 concerning the death of Peter Coates on 14th March 2019. In advance of 
responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my 
deep condolences to Peter’s family and loved ones. NHS England is keen to assure 
the family and yourself that the concerns raised about Peter’s care have been listened 
to and reflected upon.   

Your Report raises concern that there may be circumstances when a patient requires 
an immediate ambulance response but they are not in cardiac or respiratory distress 
and therefore these patients do not meet the criteria for a Category 1 response. You 
are  concerned that  there  is a  “gap” for patients  that  fall  between Category 1  and 2 
responses.  

In  2017,  following  the  largest  clinical  ambulance  trials  in  the  world,  NHS  England 
implemented new ambulance standards across the country. This was to ensure that 
the sickest patients get the fastest response and that all patients get the right response 
first time. 

NHS  Ambulance  Services  are  required  to  process  999  calls  through  an  approved 
triage system. There are currently two long established systems approved in England 
for primary 999 triage; NHS Pathways and Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS). 
The  systems  are  used  to  prioritise  999  calls  received  into  Ambulance  Services’ 
Emergency Operations Centres (EOCs). 

The  primary  purpose  of  triage  is  to  quickly  identify  priority  symptoms  (e.g. 
unconsciousness,  difficulty  breathing,  chest  pain)  and  to  assign  an  appropriate 
response  priority.  The  outcome  (disposition)  reached  based  on  the  information 
provided by the caller is mapped to one of the five national categories (Categories 1 – 
5) set  out  within the  NHS  Constitution and Ambulance Service 999  contracts.    The 
development of triage question sets and instructions lies within the remit of the triage 
system provider. 

                                                                                                                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 The  current  ambulance  categorisations  ensure  that  all  emergency  responses  are 
prioritised  appropriately;  Category  1  covers  the  most  urgent,  life-threatening  cases, 
while  Category  2  addresses  emergency  but  less  critical  incidents.  These  two 
categories are sufficient for effective triage and timely intervention for life threatening 
and emergency conditions.   

In cases where there is risk of a patient’s condition deteriorating whilst waiting for an 
ambulance to arrive, the call handler could stay on the line with the patient; this is an 
operational decision to be made by each ambulance service. Moreover, the provision 
of instructions or actions to be taken in the case of worsening patients is a standard 
component  of  call  exit  scripts,  whereby  patients  are  advised  that  if  their  condition 
worsens, they should call 999 back. This provides an opportunity for a call to be re-
triaged  and  potentially  upgraded  to  a  higher  category  response  if  this  is  clinically 
indicated. 

In  cases  where  a  patient  is  dependent  on  a  piece  of  medical  equipment  e.g. 
continuous BiPAP, the accountable clinician who is responsible for overall care of the 
patient (e.g. their GP or hospital consultant) may wish to flag the patient to the local 
ambulance service to enable the ambulance service to make a note on the patient’s 
details within the services’ records system. This can be recorded in the urgent care 
plan  or  summary  care  record  dependent  on  the  local  service.  Then,  if  the  patient  / 
carer  contacts  999  and  is  presenting  with  a  problem  relating  to  this  equipment  / 
medical device they can be managed rapidly to receive the appropriate care. 

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 Peter,  
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 Director of Patient Safety 
NHS England

Related reports

Other reports by Paul Appleton

See all →

More reports categorised “Other related deaths”

See all →

Track North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, 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.