Skip to content
recurance

Jonathan Fry

16 May 2016 · Coroner Kate Thomas · Mid Kent and Medway

A similar concern from this report was raised again 2 times later. See the linked reports.

The coroner's concerns

  1. 1. lack of senior consultant review

    “There was no Senior review by a Consultant from admission to the time of his death and was no locum cover”
  2. 2. lack of daily test result review

    “There was no daily review of test results and no consideration given to instances where tests had not been performed or consoderation given to to the reasons why”
  3. 3. inconsistent and incomplete medical records

    “Medical records were inconsistent and / or incomplete leading to a lack of clarity as to reviews and care plan”

Linked reports

Raised again laterChristopher Smith3 Feb 2021 · 4 years 9 months later
Closely relatedConfidence 0.90 · high

This report

“Medical records were inconsistent and / or incomplete”

Later report

“The next of kin was incorrectly recorded on Mr [name redacted] medical records”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗
Full chain: Inconsistent and incomplete medical records
Raised again laterSally-Ann Few15 Nov 2022 · 6 years 6 months later
Identical hazardConfidence 0.90 · high

This report

“Medical records were inconsistent and / or incomplete leading to a lack of clarity as to reviews and care plan.”

Later report

“At the inquest it was clear that the standard of record keeping by the medical staff was poor”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗
Full chain: Inconsistent and incomplete medical records

Responses

No published response was found on judiciary.uk.

  • Built with
  • NVIDIA Nemotron Nano, Super and Ultra
  • Nebius Token Factory inference
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B on Token Factory
  • Tavily follow-up web search
  • Postgres and pgvector search
  • Next.js site

Source: Prevention of Future Deaths reports and responses published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary at judiciary.uk. Crown copyright, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Data updated 26 Oct 2026.

A link shows that a similar concern was raised again, not why. It is not a finding about any organisation or person. Methodology and responsible use · Report an error