Lack of transport suitability assessment for changing patient conditions
Barts Health NHS Trust received 2 coroners' reports about this hazard between 11 Aug 2020 and 23 Jul 2026.
They came from 2 different coroners in 2 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 1 time after the first warning.
A published response was found for 1 of the 1 earlier reports, stating 5 specific actions.
The story, report by report
Spacing grows with the time between reports.
“The failure of RLH transport staff to properly assess the suitability of the venue that a patient is being taken to.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Barts Health NHS Trust responded, stating 5 specific actions.Response (PDF) ↗
“The departure lounge changed its practice to ensure that the staff document in the patients electronic record in line with trust practice. Confirmation of this has been detailed within the departments most recent version of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). At the inquest you were shown this SOP in draft form but | can update you now to say that it has now been signed off by the Royal London Hospital's Executive Board.”
“the departure lounge will now complete documentation audits in line with trust practice for clinical areas to provide assurance that this is being completed.”
3 more stated actions in the Promises tab.
- 5 years 11 months laterClosely relatedConfidence 0.90 · higha different coroner
“There appears to have been no mechanism to review the suitability of the chosen transport and crew for a patient whose condition has materially changed from the point of booking to the point of transfer.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Repeated from the earlier report:suitabilitytransportpatient
Barts Health NHS Trust responded.Response (PDF) ↗
- All reports to Barts Health NHS Trust
Each row is one judged link between an earlier and a later report. Open a row to read both quotes, found word for word in the originals.
2020 → 2026Monica Wood5 years 11 months after Moses Boardman · different coronerClosely relatedConfidence 0.90 · high
Closely relatedConfidence 0.90 · highBoth reports highlight a lack of proper assessment of transport suitability for patients. The earlier focuses on venue assessment at discharge, while the later concerns reviewing transport and crew when a patient's condition changes.
Moses Boardman · 11 Aug 2020
“The failure of RLH transport staff to properly assess the suitability of the venue that a patient is being taken to.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Monica Wood · 23 Jul 2026
“There appears to have been no mechanism to review the suitability of the chosen transport and crew for a patient whose condition has materially changed from the point of booking to the point of transfer.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Stated action in the response to the earlier report
“The departure lounge changed its practice to ensure that the staff document in the patients electronic record in line with trust practice. Confirmation of this has been detailed within the departments most recent version of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). At the inquest you were shown this SOP in draft form but | can update you now to say that it has now been signed off by the Royal London Hospital's Executive Board.”
Stated action
“The departure lounge changed its practice to ensure that the staff document in the patients electronic record in line with trust practice. Confirmation of this has been detailed within the departments most recent version of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). At the inquest you were shown this SOP in draft form but | can update you now to say that it has now been signed off by the Royal London Hospital's Executive Board.”
Stated action
“the departure lounge will now complete documentation audits in line with trust practice for clinical areas to provide assurance that this is being completed.”
Stated action
“The departure lounge clarified in their SOP that when a patient is discharged via hospital transport the Discharge Lounge staff will confirm with the Patient Transport Service driver the location and agreed destination for the patient. Any discrepancy must be escalated to the ward area for confirmation and Senior Clinical Site Manager if this discrepancy persists.”
Stated action
“As an action the Associate Director of Transport has arranged to review the current safeguarding processes in place and this process will be amended according to their findings.”
Stated action
“After the initial Serious Incident (SI) investigation we understand there was concern about Mr [name redacted] choking on fruit, therefore a second investigation was carried out to look at this particular potential incident. It's clear from staff statements that Mr [name redacted] had taken a bite out of the kiwi fruit before it was removed at 2000. At 0200 he is heard coughing and when the nurse attends she finds him unresponsive. Although he has a DNR order the cardiac arrest team is called. They arrive and”
No specific action could be extracted with a verified quote.
- Each report's concerns were extracted by Nemotron 3 Nano on Nebius Token Factory, each with a quote copied from the report.
- Concerns from reports to Barts Health NHS Trust at least six months apart were compared by meaning (Qwen3 embeddings) and wording (TF-IDF).
- The closest pairs were judged by Nemotron 3 Super with reasoning on. Only identical or closely related, with confidence of at least 0.70, are shown.
- Every quote was checked by code as an exact substring of the original text. Names of staff and family are redacted, and the deceased are named by report title only.
| Link | Meaning | Wording | Judge | Coroner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 → 2026 | 0.72 | 0.15 | Closely related · 0.90 | different |
Judge model: nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b. How Nemotron did the work · Full methodology.
Next
Other chains for Barts Health NHS Trust
- Governance failure in incident identification and poor quality of clinical notes3 reports · 2023–2025
- Over-reliance on NEWS algorithm and inadequate monitoring of deteriorating ED3 reports · 2024–2025
- Lack of strategic governance hindering incident identification2 reports · 2023–2025
- Absence of falls care plan3 reports · 2015–2024
This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.