A Patient Says They Never Made a Call That EMMA Submitted

Purpose of Document

When a patient tells their surgery they never made a call that EMMA submitted on their behalf, it raises immediate concerns about patient safety, data accuracy, and trust in the platform. These situations must be investigated quickly, handled sensitively, and resolved or escalated correctly. This article ensures support staff follow a consistent and thorough process.

Background: How EMMA Attributes a Submission to a Patient

Before investigating any dispute, support staff must understand how EMMA links a submission to a patient identity.

EMMA matches submissions to patients using the PDS verification process. The patient gives their name, date of birth, and postcode during the call. EMMA verifies these against the NHS Personal Demographics Service live database. The verified patient record is used for the form submission.

As of V12 (May 2026), Patient ID means patient details are collected at the very start of every call, before the request is discussed. This further strengthens the link between each submission and a verified patient identity.

A submission attributed to a patient therefore means that someone called the surgery's number, gave that patient's name, date of birth, and postcode during the call, and those details were verified against PDS.

Most Common Explanations and What to Check

1. A family member or carer called on the patient's behalf without telling them

This is the most common explanation. A family member, carer, or spouse called to submit a request on behalf of the patient without informing the patient. When the patient later receives a response from the surgery, they have no memory of the request being made.

This is entirely expected behaviour. EMMA can handle proxy calls. The call would have been made using the patient's details to complete the PDS verification step.

What to do:

Pull the call recording
Listen to confirm whether the caller identified themselves as a carer, family member, or third party
As of April 2026, contact preference is always captured for third-party callers. Check whether the recording includes a contact preference question.
If the recording clearly shows a third party calling on behalf of the patient, advise the practice accordingly
Reassure the practice that this is normal and expected behaviour

2. The patient made the call and has forgotten or not realised it was EMMA

Some patients, particularly elderly patients or those who called during a busy or distracted moment, may not remember making the call. Others may not have realised they were speaking to an AI system rather than a receptionist and may not associate EMMA with the submission they see.

What to do:

Pull the call recording
Listen to confirm the patient's own voice is on the call
If the recording clearly shows the patient themselves calling, advise the practice accordingly
Suggest the practice gently plays the relevant section of the recording to the patient if appropriate and if the patient consents to having their call reviewed

3. The patient submitted via SOPHIA following a Lifeline fallback and does not associate it with a phone call

As of V12 (May 2026), EMMA tells patients at the start of every call that if the call drops they will receive a secure link to complete their request. If the call dropped and the patient continued via SOPHIA, the submission would appear in the dashboard attributed to that patient. The patient may remember using the link but not remember the original call, or may not understand the connection between the two.

What to do:

Check the submission. If it came via SOPHIA rather than a direct EMMA voice call, this is the likely explanation.
Review the call recording for the original call that preceded the SOPHIA submission
Confirm to the practice that the patient started a call, the call dropped, and they completed their request via the secure SOPHIA link

4. The call was made from a shared or household phone number and the wrong patient was identified via Caller ID

If a surgery has Caller ID enabled and multiple family members share a phone number, Caller ID may have pre-matched the call to the registered patient associated with that number rather than the actual caller. The actual caller may have then provided a different family member's name and details during the PDS verification step.

What to do:

Confirm whether the surgery has Caller ID enabled
Check the call recording to confirm whose voice is on the call and what details were given during the PDS verification step
The PDS-verified details on the submission are what govern the patient identity, not the Caller ID pre-match. If the caller gave a different patient's details and those were verified by PDS, the submission is attributed to the verified patient.
If the Caller ID pre-match is overriding the PDS verification result, escalate to engineering as this is not expected behaviour

5. The submission was attributed to the wrong patient due to a PDS verification error

This is rare but possible. If EMMA accepted incorrect demographic details that coincidentally matched a different patient's PDS record, the submission could be attributed to the wrong patient. This is a clinical safety concern.

What to do:

Pull the call recording immediately
Listen carefully to the details the caller gave: name, date of birth, postcode
Check the PDS-verified details on the submission
If the details the caller gave clearly do not match the patient the submission was attributed to, this is a clinical safety incident
Escalate immediately to the clinical safety lead and engineering with the call ID, the submission details, and a full description of what the recording shows
Do not close the ticket or advise the practice the issue is resolved until a full investigation has been completed

Step-by-Step Triage Process

Confirm the specific submission the patient is disputing. What was submitted? What date and time? What does the submission contain?
Pull the call recording for that submission immediately.
Listen to the full call. Identify:
- Is it the patient's own voice or a third party?
- Did the caller identify as a carer, family member, or proxy?
- What name, date of birth, and postcode did the caller give during verification?
- Do those details match the patient the submission was attributed to?
Check whether the submission was made via SOPHIA following a Lifeline drop rather than a direct voice call.
Check whether the surgery has Caller ID enabled and whether the phone number used is shared by multiple family members.
Based on the call recording, identify the most likely explanation from those listed above.
If the recording cannot explain the submission or if the details given clearly do not match the attributed patient, escalate as a clinical safety incident.

What to Tell the Practice

Keep communication calm, factual, and reassuring while the investigation is underway.

Initial response before reviewing the recording:

"We take patient identity disputes seriously. We are pulling the call recording now so we can review exactly what happened. We will come back to you with our findings as quickly as possible. In the meantime, please advise your team to hold the submission and not action it until we have confirmed the patient identity."

After confirming a proxy caller:

"Having reviewed the call recording, we can confirm that this call was made by someone calling on behalf of the patient, providing the patient's details during the call. This is a common scenario. The request was submitted on behalf of the patient by the person who called. We recommend the practice contacts the patient to confirm the request and discuss next steps."

After confirming the patient made the call themselves:

"Having reviewed the call recording, we can confirm that this call was made by the patient themselves. It is possible the patient does not remember making the call or did not realise they were interacting with EMMA. We recommend the practice contacts the patient to discuss the submission."

Clinical Safety Protocol

If the call recording shows that the details given during the call clearly do not match the patient the submission was attributed to, treat this as a clinical safety incident immediately.

Steps:

Do not action the submission
Advise the practice to place the submission on hold
Pull and preserve the call recording immediately
Document the caller's stated details versus the attributed patient's details
Escalate to the clinical safety lead and engineering simultaneously
Do not close the ticket until a full investigation has confirmed the cause and resolution
Follow the internal incident response process

Common Mistakes

Advising a practice to action the submission before the call recording has been reviewed
Assuming the patient must be wrong without pulling the call recording first
Not checking whether the submission came via SOPHIA rather than a direct EMMA voice call
Not considering the proxy caller scenario before concluding there is a platform issue
Treating every patient dispute as a clinical safety incident before completing the triage process
Treating a confirmed identity mismatch as anything other than a clinical safety incident

Escalation Guidance

Escalate to engineering if:

The call recording shows details that clearly do not match the attributed patient
Caller ID pre-match appears to be overriding PDS verification results
Multiple patient identity disputes are occurring at the same time across one or more surgeries

Escalate to the clinical safety lead immediately if:

The recorded details do not match the attributed patient
There is any possibility that clinical action was taken on a submission attributed to the wrong patient

When escalating, always include:

Surgery name and ODS code
Submission ID and date
Call ID and timestamp
What the recording shows: caller's stated details versus attributed patient's details
Whether Caller ID is enabled for that surgery
Whether any clinical action has already been taken on the submission

Last Reviewed: May 2026 Owner: Support and Customer Success