Recurring concern

Unreliable mental health referral pathways

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 4 Sep 2013•Latest report 25 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of mental health referral pathways, including identifying when referral is indicated, selecting the correct route, accepting direct referrals, making or re-making referrals, receiving and actioning referrals, and providing clear urgency or follow-up arrangements.

Not included

  • Excludes failures limited to assessment or treatment after a mental health referral has been successfully received and actioned.
  • Excludes generic social-care, occupational-health or other specialist referrals unless the report explicitly concerns the mental health referral pathway.
  • Excludes generic communication, training or documentation deficiencies that are not directly tied to making, receiving, processing or following up a mental health referral.
  • Excludes urgent mental-health referral and assessment delays where the existing dedicated urgent mental-health pathway concern is the more specific supported boundary.
Reports
110

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
136

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
173

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department of Health and Social Care19
NHS England15
HM Prison and Probation Service6
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board6
North East London NHS Foundation Trust5
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust4
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust4
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust4
College of Policing3
Department for Education3
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust3
Ministry of Justice3
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust3
North London NHS Foundation Trust3
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust3

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Eve Cullen · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Eve Cullen, who had epileptic seizures and a fluctuating peri-ictal confusional state, went missing from her family home on 17 July 2014 and was later found dead in an alleyway on 9 August 2014. The concerns were that a hospital referral was not actioned, two urgent referrals were not treated as urgent, and there was no uniform definition or timeframe for urgent referrals.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to action received mental health referrals

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The failure to action the referral from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (2) The failure to treat the 2 referrals on the 14th & 15th July 2014 as urgent (3) The lack of any uniform agreement as to what constitutes an 'urgent' referral I received evidence from ████████ Clinical Lead, for the Redditch & Bromsgrove CMHT who confirmed that there was no evidence on the file that the referral on file had been actioned at all. She confirmed that (as set out in the root cause analysis which has been prepared), there is no service wide definition of what might constitute an urgent referral (nor any agreed definition of such terms as 'very urgent', 'immediate', 'routine') and further when referrals are made no suggested timeframe is recorded. She also told me that once the referral is received it is a matter for the psychiatrist as to when the patient is seen, even though the psychiatrist would not have had any contact with a new patient referred in this way. Although it is impossible to tell whether faster action may have changed the outcome in this case it seems that when 2 mental health professionals ask for an urgent referral but no action is proposed for some 8 days that this amounts to a lost opportunity to intervene and possibly save the life of the patient. I would ask the Trust to consider that terms such as 'very urgent, 'urgent', 'routine' etc. should be defined with a view to there being a service wide understanding of what is expected in terms of timely action upon referrals that are made. ”

    Source location

    Eve Cullen · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to record a suggested timeframe for action on referrals

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The failure to action the referral from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (2) The failure to treat the 2 referrals on the 14th & 15th July 2014 as urgent (3) The lack of any uniform agreement as to what constitutes an 'urgent' referral I received evidence from ████████ Clinical Lead, for the Redditch & Bromsgrove CMHT who confirmed that there was no evidence on the file that the referral on file had been actioned at all. She confirmed that (as set out in the root cause analysis which has been prepared), there is no service wide definition of what might constitute an urgent referral (nor any agreed definition of such terms as 'very urgent', 'immediate', 'routine') and further when referrals are made no suggested timeframe is recorded. She also told me that once the referral is received it is a matter for the psychiatrist as to when the patient is seen, even though the psychiatrist would not have had any contact with a new patient referred in this way. Although it is impossible to tell whether faster action may have changed the outcome in this case it seems that when 2 mental health professionals ask for an urgent referral but no action is proposed for some 8 days that this amounts to a lost opportunity to intervene and possibly save the life of the patient. I would ask the Trust to consider that terms such as 'very urgent, 'urgent', 'routine' etc. should be defined with a view to there being a service wide understanding of what is expected in terms of timely action upon referrals that are made. ”

    Source location

    Eve Cullen · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop a countywide standardised urgent-referral system with performance measures and a policy defining urgent and routine response timescales.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Unfortunately, it has not to date been the case that the same process applies in respect of the other areas in which the Trust provides services in Worcestershire, however we are working with the North CCG’s to address this, as it is our ambition to introduce a standardised system across the County. The Trust is working towards performance measures for all categories of referrals and will incorporate into a policy, which will distinguish between urgent and routine referrals with defined timescales for contact.”

    Source location

    2015-0002-Response-by-Worcestershire-Health-Care-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 January 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Operate the Redditch and Bromsgrove urgent-referral protocol, including triage within 24 hours and face-to-face assessment within 24 hours where required.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I confirm that since receiving your correspondence the Trust has written to all general practitioners in Redditch & Bromsgrove on 4 February 2015 identifying a protocol for the referral of mental health patients and the timescales in which they can be seen. This clarifies that referrals marked urgent should be triaged within 24 hours. The triage process may involve a discussion with the referrer, a discussion with the individual and/or a face to face assessment.”

    Source location

    2015-0002-Response-by-Worcestershire-Health-Care-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 January 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Gather data and review the effectiveness of the recently implemented referral process, identifying issues requiring attention.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst this process has recently been implemented, data is being gathered to enable a review to assess effectiveness and to identify any issues. A similar process is being implemented in Wyre Forest.”

    Source location

    2015-0002-Response-by-Worcestershire-Health-Care-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 January 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The 4 July referral was received, and urgent follow-up was not initially indicated; it was scheduled for weekly multidisciplinary review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “One issue that I do need to raise with you is in respect of the referral from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital dated 4 July 2014 which you did not believe had been actioned by the community mental health team. Having reviewed this matter, it was clarified that the referral dated 4 July 2014 was received by the community mental health team on 11 July 2014. Discussion with the Queen Elizabeth RAID (rapid assessment interface, discharge) confirmed that at the point of the referral urgent follow-up was not indicated, as a result the referral was due to be reviewed by the weekly multidisciplinary team meeting.”

    Source location

    2015-0002-Response-by-Worcestershire-Health-Care-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 8 January 2015

    Open published response
  2. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Janette Insley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Janette Insley had a longstanding history of depressive illness and was admitted to a mental health unit after her mental and psychological health deteriorated. After failing to return from home leave on 3 August 2014, she was found deceased at home having self-ligatured; concerns included a lack of inpatient psychological therapy provision and delays in accessing community-based therapy after discharge.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide inpatient access to suitably qualified psychological practitioners and referral resources

    Wider context from the report

    “1. During the course of the evidence I was told that whilst the Consultant Psychiatrist considered that a referral to a Psychologist was the most appropriate course of treatment available, staff were unable to make any such referral for inpatients due to lack of i) availability of suitably qualified practitioners and ii) resources. There is therefore a clear service gap. ”

    Source location

    Janette Insley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in community-based psychological therapy referrals after discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “3. That any referral to/consultation with a Psychologist based within the community would have taken at least 3-4 weeks post-discharge, thus leaving the patient without therapy during a particularly vulnerable period. ”

    Source location

    Janette Insley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Publish a five-year mental health plan setting out actions to improve access and waiting times for mental health services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Outcomes Framework for the NHS in England clearly states that the NHS should carry on expanding access to psychological services as part of the IAPT programme. In addition, the Department’s new five-year plan for mental health, Achieving Better Access to Mental Health Services by 2020 was published in October 2014. This articulates our ambition and the immediate actions we will take this year and next to achieve better access and waiting times in mental health services. This includes the IAPT commitment of treatment within 6 weeks for 75% of people with 95% of people being treated within 18 weeks.”

    Source location

    2014-0574-Response-by-Department-of-Health
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 December 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Take immediate actions to improve mental health access and waiting times, including IAPT treatment within six weeks for 75% and within 18 weeks for 95% of people.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Outcomes Framework for the NHS in England clearly states that the NHS should carry on expanding access to psychological services as part of the IAPT programme. In addition, the Department’s new five-year plan for mental health, Achieving Better Access to Mental Health Services by 2020 was published in October 2014. This articulates our ambition and the immediate actions we will take this year and next to achieve better access and waiting times in mental health services. This includes the IAPT commitment of treatment within 6 weeks for 75% of people with 95% of people being treated within 18 weeks.”

    Source location

    2014-0574-Response-by-Department-of-Health
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 December 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The NHS Trust and Clinical Commissioning Group are responsible for addressing the concerns about local psychological therapy provision.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You have copied your report to the relevant NHS Trust and Clinical Commissioning Group. The issues you raised are most appropriately addressed at a local level and I would expect the NHS organisations responsible to respond fully to your concerns.”

    Source location

    2014-0574-Response-by-Department-of-Health
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 December 2014

    Open published response
  3. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew James AITKEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Andrew Aitken was admitted to hospital on 10 June 2014 after taking a drug overdose, was treated and discharged on 16 June. Two months later he was found dead at home from amitriptyline toxicity, without having accessed mental health care in the meantime. Concerns included the handling of the remaining tablets, failure to seek records of a previous psychiatric admission, lack of direct referral to community mental health services despite him having no GP, and his discharge without clothes or shoes.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide direct referral to community mental health services for patients without a GP

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The junior psychiatrist discharging Mr Aitken did strongly advise him to register with a GP and then to seek referral to mental health services, but it did not occur to her to refer him direct to the community mental health team, given that he had no GP. ”

    Source location

    Andrew James AITKEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A referral to secondary mental health services was considered unnecessary because comprehensive assessments found no indication that this level of input was required.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The SIR considered this point noting that the RAID Service is able to make direct referrals to secondary mental health services and where indicated can refer a patient to the Home Treatment Team, Crisis Services or the Community Mental Health Team. Community Mental Health Teams manage those patients with enduring mental health problems and the SIR found that the assessments undertaken had been comprehensive and that there had been no indication that this level of input was necessary for Mr Aitken.”

    Source location

    2014-0561-Response-by-East-London-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 December 2014

    Open published response
  4. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Paul Leslie HYDE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Paul Leslie Hyde died after taking an overdose of medication that had been stopped, with the sedatory effect contributing to his death. The report raised concerns that his referral for a psychiatric medication review was not appropriately addressed, that he was not seen within the required period or followed up, and that the re-referral system was not fit for purpose.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in appropriately addressing referrals within the 28-day period

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) On the 14th April 2014, GP Dr. Peter Devlin having anxieties expressed to him by one of the Community Mental Health Workers concerning Paul Hyde’s deteriorating condition, sought advice from the Assessment and Treatment Team of the Community Mental Health Services. He spoke to Graham Walton who advised him that he should refer Mr. Hyde back to ATS (Assessment and Treatment Service). He therefore wrote a letter on the 15th July, 2014 and this was sent so that it arrived on the same day, expressing his anxiety. (2) The request was for Mr. Hyde to see a Psychiatrist to carry out a medication review. It is clear that this Medication Review needs to be carried out by the Psychiatrist in a face-to-face review with the patient. (3) The referral was not appropriately addressed until some 14 days in to the 28-day period within which the patient is required either to have been seen by ATS or the Psychiatrist or the GP. It was decided, though very poorly documented that the Psychiatrist should phone the GP to see whether, after discussion, it was possible for the GP to prescribe a new medication for Mr. Hyde. It should have been obvious from the start that this was not a direction for this referral to take. There seems to be no facility for the Psychiatrist to be involved in the assessment procedure and indicate a course him or herself. There should be. In any event, no contact was made with the GP and there is apparently no follow up system so no one seems to have picked up that not only was Mr. Hyde not seen within the 28-days of referral, but in fact that he was not seen at all i.e. he was lost to follow up. (4) From the point of view of Mr. Hyde, the re-referral system was not fit for purpose. In the event, Mr. Hyde took an overdose of the medication which had been stopped, although he still had some tablets, and the very sedatory effect that he had complained about kicked in, resulting in his death. ”

    Source location

    Paul Leslie HYDE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Recruit an additional triage administrator.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “████████ Service Director for Brighton & Hove has confirmed that he is in discussions with the CCG and there is in place a joint Performance Improvement Plan in relation to the 4 Week Wait for routine referrals into the Assessment & Treatment Service. Actions include, a review of the administration triage processes to address triage waiting times. This recognised the need for an additional administrator in Triage and I am pleased to say recruitment to this post has been completed. A further action was a review of the triage function/process to include increased involvement from Consultant Psychiatrists and additional members of ATS. All clinical triage meetings have a Consultant Psychiatrist, lead nurse, and administrator present. Following Mr Hyde’s inquest, ████████ Associate Specialist has been invited to attend the triage meetings on a regular basis.”

    Source location

    2014-0527-Response-by-Sussex-Partnership-NHS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 5 December 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review administration triage processes to reduce triage waiting times.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “████████ Service Director for Brighton & Hove has confirmed that he is in discussions with the CCG and there is in place a joint Performance Improvement Plan in relation to the 4 Week Wait for routine referrals into the Assessment & Treatment Service. Actions include, a review of the administration triage processes to address triage waiting times. This recognised the need for an additional administrator in Triage and I am pleased to say recruitment to this post has been completed. A further action was a review of the triage function/process to include increased involvement from Consultant Psychiatrists and additional members of ATS. All clinical triage meetings have a Consultant Psychiatrist, lead nurse, and administrator present. Following Mr Hyde’s inquest, ████████ Associate Specialist has been invited to attend the triage meetings on a regular basis.”

    Source location

    2014-0527-Response-by-Sussex-Partnership-NHS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 5 December 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Strengthen clinical triage meetings through Consultant Psychiatrist, lead nurse, administrator and additional specialist participation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “████████ Service Director for Brighton & Hove has confirmed that he is in discussions with the CCG and there is in place a joint Performance Improvement Plan in relation to the 4 Week Wait for routine referrals into the Assessment & Treatment Service. Actions include, a review of the administration triage processes to address triage waiting times. This recognised the need for an additional administrator in Triage and I am pleased to say recruitment to this post has been completed. A further action was a review of the triage function/process to include increased involvement from Consultant Psychiatrists and additional members of ATS. All clinical triage meetings have a Consultant Psychiatrist, lead nurse, and administrator present. Following Mr Hyde’s inquest, ████████ Associate Specialist has been invited to attend the triage meetings on a regular basis.”

    Source location

    2014-0527-Response-by-Sussex-Partnership-NHS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 5 December 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Extend the Breach Tool to record and monitor every referral, pending contact and triage outcome, with updated guidance and staff instruction.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The use of the Breach Tool has been extended and the system is now more robust. Medical Personal Assistants now complete this for all referrals, regardless of the triage decision. Team leads have oversight of the tool and it is a ‘live’ record of all pending contacts, whether by telephone or face to face with service users. All actions / outcomes from the clinical triage meetings are now recorded on the Breach Tool and these are closely monitored. The Breach Tool guidance has been reviewed and staff have received clear instruction on how to use the tool.”

    Source location

    2014-0527-Response-by-Sussex-Partnership-NHS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 5 December 2014

    Open published response
  5. South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Peter Stanley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Peter Stanley, aged 17, was found hanging in woodland on 2 August 2013 after a history of mental health concerns, suicidal thoughts and a previous suicide attempt. The report identified missed opportunities for mental health assessment and care, alongside concerns about information-sharing, homelessness and accommodation, custody assessments, and support for young people.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of frontline social services practitioners to identify when and where to make mental health referrals

    Wider context from the report

    “(9) It is evident that front line social services practitioners are not always aware of when and where to make mental health referrals. ”

    Source location

    Peter Stanley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. South Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    John William THORPE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    John William THORPE, aged 78, died by drowning after he was found in the Forty Foot Drain on 24 March 2014. Before his death, he had reported low mood, hopelessness and self-harm, was prescribed fluoxetine, and was asked to self-refer to psychological therapy. The concerns included the lack of a direct mental-health referral, the absence of a definite follow-up arrangement, and whether the risks associated with starting antidepressants and his history of suicidal behaviour were adequately considered.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to make direct mental health referrals when self-referral is not appropriate

    Wider context from the report

    “1. That the deceased was asked to "self-refer" himself to IAPT rather than a direct referral being made on his behalf to an appropriate mental health resource. His widow was particularly critical of this at the Inquest, commenting she attempted to fill the form in for him but it wasn't completed and she believed her husband would have responded if a direct referral had been made. I appreciate this may be 'standard practice' but the point is surely not in every case and Doctors should be encouraged to use their discretion more ”

    Source location

    John William THORPE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Norfolk

    AI-generated summary

    Graeme Alexander Kidd · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Graeme Alexander Kidd was found hanging at home on 6 March 2014 and died in hospital on 7 March 2014. The report identified concerns about locum doctors’ access to records and knowledge of local mental health services, delays in GP referrals, the lack of medication advice when the prescribing doctor was unavailable, and the delayed implementation of an action plan addressing these matters.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure locum doctors know available local mental health support teams and referral criteria

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Locum Doctors are not aware of the various local mental health support Teams available and the criteria which should be used when considering referral to an appropriate part of the service ”

    Source location

    Graeme Alexander Kidd · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  8. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Stephen Peter Church · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Stephen Church was found dead at the entrance to the multi-storey car park at Royal Berkshire Hospital on 13 May 2011 after absconding while detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The concerns included a broken chain of command resulting in only one police officer being responsible for his detention, insufficient understanding of an interagency working protocol, inadequate joint working to keep him safe, and delay in contacting an approved mental health professional to arrange a Mental Health Act assessment.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of appreciation of the need to contact an approved mental health professional promptly for a Mental Health Act assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “There was a lack of appreciation amongst the psychiatric liaison service, Royal Berkshire Hospital staff and British Transport Police as to the importance of contacting an approved mental health professional promptly to arrange a Mental Health Act assessment. ”

    Source location

    Stephen Peter Church · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Coordinate consultation and completion of the amended interagency protocol for managing mental-health-related Section 136 detentions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Thames Valley Police were not directly involved in the original incident involving Mr Church, his detention under S136 Mental Health Act nor his subsequent care prior to his death on 13th May 2011. However, as the force lead in Mental Health for Thames Valley Police I take responsibility for co-ordinating the publication of an interagency joint working protocol for managing mental health in the Thames Valley Area. This protocol was subject to discussion during the inquest.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Thames-Valley-Police
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Work with partner organisations to deliver joint training and awareness on the amended protocol after it is agreed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The specific concern raised by Mr Sidhu that related to the protocol suggests that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding about it among staff members of the psychiatric liaison service and the Royal Berkshire Hospital. Thames Valley Police has no direct responsibility or influence for their understanding as responsibility for dissemination and training of the protocol lies with the individual organisations concerned. However, once the amended version has been agreed, Thames Valley Police is committed to work together with the other organisations named within the Regulation 28 report to assist with joint training and awareness. Our own staff will be informed of the need to ensure that other organisations are aware of its existence whenever an incident occurs and to support partner agencies in understanding the individual responsibilities.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Thames-Valley-Police
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inform police staff to promote partner organisations’ awareness of the protocol and support understanding of their respective responsibilities during incidents.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The specific concern raised by Mr Sidhu that related to the protocol suggests that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding about it among staff members of the psychiatric liaison service and the Royal Berkshire Hospital. Thames Valley Police has no direct responsibility or influence for their understanding as responsibility for dissemination and training of the protocol lies with the individual organisations concerned. However, once the amended version has been agreed, Thames Valley Police is committed to work together with the other organisations named within the Regulation 28 report to assist with joint training and awareness. Our own staff will be informed of the need to ensure that other organisations are aware of its existence whenever an incident occurs and to support partner agencies in understanding the individual responsibilities.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Thames-Valley-Police
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Make every effort to ensure British Transport Police understands the Thames Valley mental-health protocol.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “While British Transport Police have indicated that they are unable to be signatories to individual protocols as they are a National Force, Thames Valley Police will make every effort to ensure their awareness and understanding of the Thames Valley protocol.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Thames-Valley-Police
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Add requirements to keep detainees supervised until formal handover and ensure mental-health professionals and AMHPs are informed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In summary, the break down in the chain of command is being addressed as a conduct issue and I am confident that there is no systemic failing in this area. With regards to the other concern highlighted, the BTP Manual of Guidance now includes the following:”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-British-Transport-Police
    Page 6 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide cross-agency training on using the revised Section 136 protocol, flowchart and monitoring forms.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There will also be implementation of a training programme which again will be open to all of the agencies that sign up to the protocol. British Transport Police are unable to sign local protocols because they are a national force but they have agreed to abide by it.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Royal-Berkshire-NHS-Trust1
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Finalize and approve an A&E flowchart identifying Section 136 admission, AMHP contact and patient-management steps.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The flowchart will provide the A&E staff with a clear picture of the questions that they need to ask when the Section 136 patient is admitted, in order to identify the appropriate AMHP so that they can attend as quickly as possible which is not what happened in the case of SC. The contact numbers for the 6 different areas will be included and the Trust will adopt the Section 136 monitoring forms used by the Mental Health Services.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Royal-Berkshire-NHS-Trust1
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Display the approved Section 136 flowchart prominently in the A&E department.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the meantime, the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust has finalised and approved a flowchart that will be prominently displayed in the A&E department. It is intended that the flowchart will be in place in the A&E department before 26 November 2014 and that staff will have received training with regards use of the flowchart and the S136 monitoring forms by the end of November 2014.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Royal-Berkshire-NHS-Trust1
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Adopt Section 136 monitoring forms to capture admission information and whether the AMHP has been contacted.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The flowchart will provide the A&E staff with a clear picture of the questions that they need to ask when the Section 136 patient is admitted, in order to identify the appropriate AMHP so that they can attend as quickly as possible which is not what happened in the case of SC. The contact numbers for the 6 different areas will be included and the Trust will adopt the Section 136 monitoring forms used by the Mental Health Services.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Royal-Berkshire-NHS-Trust1
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Require senior A&E staff to ensure AMHP contact and use Psychological Medicine Service checks to confirm contact and advise on patient management.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2. The trust has a flowchart which identifies the steps that need to be taken from the point of admission to A&E and identifies the role of the psychological medicine service (PMS) at the Trust who will advise A&E on the management of the patient in the A&E Department. They will also check that AMHP has been called which was a particular area of concern.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Royal-Berkshire-NHS-Trust1
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Send completed Section 136 monitoring forms to the Trust’s Mental Health Coordinator so care can be audited.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “the patient to be assessed with either admission to the Trust with support from PMS or a transfer to a place of safety e.g. Prospect Park Hospital. The flowchart has been finalised and approved by the A&E Clinical Governance Team. The Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust has also adopted the assessment forms for Section 136 monitoring from the mental health Trust so that the key information is gathered on admission and the nursing staff are able to identify whether the AMHP has been informed of the need for assessment at an early stage. There will be a further check made by the PMS who will advise the A&E staff regarding the management of the Section 136 patient in the A&E Department. PMS will also check whether the AMHP has been contacted. Copies of the assessment form for Section 136 will be sent to the RBH Mental Health Coordinator so that care can be audited.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Royal-Berkshire-NHS-Trust1
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    British Transport Police cannot reliably contact AMHPs before arrival because it lacks current on-call contact lists and maintaining them nationally is impractical.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It was acknowledged at the Inquest that British Transport Police was not a signatory to the joint interagency protocol, but officers giving evidence accepted that they would try to work to the aims where possible. I endorse this aspiration but must highlight the impracticalities of British Transport Police being able to achieve this in every case.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-British-Transport-Police
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Health professionals, through the place-of-safety coordinator, are responsible for contacting the AMHP and arranging necessary mental-health assessment arrangements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My view is supported by reference to a recent meeting of the Mental Health Partnership Board for London, which includes CEOs of the London Mental Health Trusts. At that meeting the question of whose role it was to call the AMHP following a S136 detention delivered a unanimous response; that it was the role of the health professionals as the police would not have access to up to date information. The Board has recently launched a new policy for S136 and S135 arrangements in”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-British-Transport-Police
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A&E staff retain responsibility for the patient and contacting the AMHP; the Psychological Medicine Service will advise but not assume responsibility.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the meantime, the two senior consultants from the A&E department, ████████ and the Matron ████████ attended the inter-agency meeting at the Trust on 24 September and have taken the message back to the A&E department that they should be liaising with the PMS at the Trust who, although they will not take responsibility for the patient, will advise on their management and contacting the AMHP if that has not already been done. There is therefore a mechanism whereby the A&E staff will be aware that it is their responsibility to check that the AMHP has been contacted and if for any reason it is not done for the PMS to make sure that contact is made at the earliest opportunity.”

    Source location

    2014-0331-Response-by-Royal-Berkshire-NHS-Trust1
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 July 2014

    Open published response
  9. South and East Cumbria

    AI-generated summary

    Helena Kathleen Farrell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Helena Kathleen Farrell had bulimia, had been sexually assaulted, took an overdose, self-harmed, and wrote letters that appeared to be suicide letters after her death. She died from hanging following a period in which she was not seen by CAMHS until the day before her death, and those dealing with her did not recognise her suicidal feelings and intentions. The concerns included failures in the CAMHS referral and follow-up system, inadequate staffing and training, failure to recognise escalating seriousness, unrealistic demands on the school nurse, and insufficient checking of the school counsellor’s credentials.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the CAMHS referral system to function adequately

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) As for CAMHS (part of the Foundation Trust) the referral system was not working adequately and the referral was not followed up after triage even though it was classified as urgent. ”

    Source location

    Helena Kathleen Farrell · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Redesign the CAMHS referral system with a 48-hour urgent-response target and electronic breach flagging and investigation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The referral system has been significantly redesigned, as evidenced in the internal action plan at Appendix 1 (enclosed), points 5 and 6. The timescales for response to referrals deemed urgent is now 48 hours and any breaches are electronically flagged and investigated. Achievement of this demand target has been consistently high.”

    Source location

    2014-0309-Response-by-Cumbria-NHS-Foundation-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 3 July 2014

    Open published response
  10. North London

    AI-generated summary

    Farres Ikken · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Farres Ikken was arrested after stating that he wanted to kill himself, assessed by mental health services, and discharged for follow-up by his GP. Shortly after leaving the hospital, he hanged himself in the hospital grounds; the substantive concern was that hospital staff could not directly refer him to community psychological services on discharge.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of hospital staff to refer discharging patients to community psychological services

    Wider context from the report

    “That staff at the hospital could not themselves, on discharge, refer Mr Ikken to community psychological services. ”

    Source location

    Farres Ikken · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026