Recurring concern

Failure to reliably supervise and monitor residents in care accommodation

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 1 Dec 2013•Latest report 21 May 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of required resident observation, supervision, bathroom or location monitoring, and arrangements for detecting or responding to unexplained absence in care or supported accommodation.

Not included

  • Condition-specific clinical monitoring where general resident supervision is reliable
  • Custody checks or hospital observation outside care accommodation
  • Generic staffing or documentation failures that do not impair resident supervision or presence awareness
Reports
34

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
39

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
35

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.

Care Quality Commission4
Department of Health and Social Care2
Hc-One Limited2
Alexandra View Care Centre1
Aria Healthcare Group Ltd1
Bolton Borough Council1
Bournemouth Churches Housing Association Limited1
Bowden Derra Park Limited1
Bupa Care Homes1
Care UK1
Cedar House Nursing and Residential Home1
Chilton Care Centre1
Coombe Dingle Nursing Home1
Essex County Council1
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust1

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. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Joyce May DENNIS · 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

    Joyce May Dennis, a resident of Roseacre Care Home, became unwell on 9 September 2019 and deteriorated over the following days before being admitted to hospital with sepsis and the onset of a heart attack. She died at 15.30 on 13 September 2019. The principal concerns were inadequate monitoring and record-keeping, failure to investigate or escalate worsening symptoms, insufficient staff training about illness and sepsis in older people, poor liaison, and failure to record family concerns.

    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 continuous observation sufficient to enable prompt medical assistance

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There was a lack of continuous oversight, a lack of notes, a lack of review of those notes and no investigations at the Care Home. It has been underlined to me heavily throughout the proceedings that the care staff are not medically qualified. I accept that and would not expect them to be so in a residential care home setting. However, they had a duty of care for Joyce and that included keeping her under sufficient observation to allow for medical assistance to be called promptly as necessary. ”

    Source location

    Joyce May DENNIS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 6 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    KENNETH SMITH · 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

    Kenneth Smith, who had cognitive impairment and was at high risk of falls, died on 9 November 2020 after falling at a care home and developing acute-on-chronic subdural haematomas. The report raised concerns about reducing his supervision, failing to set a review date, inadequate escalation of care after further falls, and insufficient consideration of medication and mental-health factors in assessing his falls risk.

    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 an appropriate decision on the level of supervision

    Wider context from the report

    “After a proposed re-assessment of the falls risk posed by the deceased on the 22nd of October 2020 the 14-day period expired on the 22nd and 29th of October established that the deceased was to suffer 6 falls between the 22nd and 29th of October 2020. Two of these falls took place on the 22nd of October 2020 – the same date of the reduction in the level of care being offered. The evidence from the care home indicated that there was no date that had been given for a future review. It was also accepted that there was no action taken to consider whether any fall or falls resulted in the Accident Record including no action taken on the 29th of October 2020 when the deceased suffered two falls, resulting in tears and a head injury. Additionally, the evidence established that on release from hospital to the care home on the 6th of October 2020, the discharge clinicians had stopped the prescription of Trazodone due to its known sedative qualities. There was no evidence of this (as part of the falls risk assessment) being taken into account by carers adequately, or at all. Care staff had only escalated concerns over the deceased's progressive agitation to a general practitioner on 30th of October 2020. This had resulted in a referral to the Older Persons' Mental Health Team. There was no evidence as to why further advice from a mental health practitioner was not sought earlier, or as part of the risk assessment on the 22nd of October 2020. The nature and quality of the care received by the deceased between the 22nd and 31st of October 2020 reveal the following concerns: 1. The decision to reduce the level of supervision was suboptimal, incorrect and unlawful. 2. The failure to consider and specify a review date; 3. The lack of appropriate scaling up of care to meet identified problems or issues with the reduced level of care, with no prompt to act on urgent review. 4. Care plan guidance, whilst not triggered, was serious or untoward incidents review by the care home, the CCG, or local authority; ”

    Source location

    KENNETH SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Ruth Jones · 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

    Ruth Jones, a resident of The Beeches Care Home who was at risk of falls, fell while unobserved after being isolated because Covid-19 was suspected. She was admitted to hospital with a fractured neck of femur and bronchopneumonia and later died there. Concerns included the lack of guidance and staffing arrangements for safely observing residents at risk of falls during required isolation, and the difficulties caused when frail patients attended hospital without family support.

    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

    Insufficient staffing capacity for continuous observation of residents at risk of falls during self-isolation

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The inquest heard that Mrs Jones was frail and at risk of falls. The home had a falls risk plan in place that was based around her being observed during the day in communal areas. The home was not staffed to provide one to one observations for residents required to self-isolate. As a result when Covid 19 was suspected by the GP, and the home were directed to isolate her she could not be observed by staff as would generally be the case in the day. The home took some steps with sensors to ensure they were aware if she stood up whilst in her room but could not provide continuous observation. It was unclear how homes were being advised to safely manage residents at risk of falls where isolation was required. The home were unaware of any guidance that they should follow to manage the risk. ”

    Source location

    Ruth Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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

    The provider and registered manager, not CQC, are responsible for deciding how to address identified care risks and implement improvements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In accordance with CQC’s regulatory remit, we highlight breaches of the Regulations to a provider and where appropriate ask them what they are going to do to make improvements. We do not tell them what they should do. That is for the provider and/or registered manager (both being registered persons for CQC purposes) to decide.”

    Source location

    2021-0038-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 February 2021

    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

    Existing individualised care plans and additional welfare checks were considered sufficient to mitigate Mrs Jones’s fall risk while unwell.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have reviewed Mrs Jones’ care records, and in this case, we believe that the service had taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of falls for Mrs Jones. There were care plans in place to manage the risk of falls for Mrs Jones and these were relevant whether she was in communal areas or in her bedroom. Reference to times when Mrs. Jones was unwell were made and indicated that staff should make additional checks of Mrs Jones’ welfare at those times. In our view, the registered manager had assessed Mrs Jones on an individual basis and despite her not being funded for one to one care had assessed risk and put measures in place to support Mrs Jones whilst she was unwell.”

    Source location

    2021-0038-Response-from-CQC-Redacted
    Page 5 · response
    Published 15 February 2021

    Open published response
  4. Sunderland

    AI-generated summary

    Edward Mallaby · 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

    Edward Mallaby died after a boxed television fell onto him in his room at Alexandra View Care Home, causing injuries, bedbound status and pneumonia. Concerns included the handling and secure storage of potentially hazardous personal property, failure or absence of alerts when he was out of bed, unclear observation arrangements, and the lack of a rapid learning exercise or deadline for policy and training review.

    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 resident alert arrangements to alert staff before routine checks

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Staff only discovered the deceased “with the TV Box on the top of his legs” on a routine check rather than by a sensor mat or personal alarm call. ”

    Source location

    Edward Mallaby · 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

    Introduce an Observation and Monitoring form, update the Falls Risk Assessment, and require at least hourly sensor-mat checks throughout each shift with daily senior-management monitoring at Alexandra View.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition, I have introduced an Observation and Monitoring form (also enclosed) to be used in accordance with the updated Management and Prevention of Falls policy and updated the Falls Risk Assessment to reference this new record (attached). At the time of Mr Mallaby’s accident, sensor mats were checked at each shift changeover and recorded on the handover by the person in charge. The introduction of this form will ensure sensor equipment is checked for its position and that it is in working order throughout the shift and a minimum of hourly. This amendment to policy and additional checking is being monitored daily at Alexandra View by on site senior management.”

    Source location

    2020-0277-Response-from-Roseberry-Care-Centres-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 January 2021

    Open published response
  5. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Marion Glover · 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

    Marion Glover suffered an unwitnessed fall at Melbourne Court on 24 February 2020, sustaining facial and rib fractures, and later died in hospital on 15 April 2020. The report identified a serious risk that residents with cognitive illnesses or confusion could leave the building unknowingly where there were no restrictions on leaving and no observation of the foyer, and questioned whether the accommodation was suitable for such residents.

    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 restrict resident departures or observe foyer areas

    Wider context from the report

    “On exploration of this issue, it became apparent that in the absence of any restriction on residents leaving the building or observation of the foyer area there is a serious risk that such residents suffering cognitive illnesses/confusion can unknowingly leave the building. In the circumstances Melbourne Court does not appear to be suitable accommodation for residents who are suffering cognitive illnesses and confusion. ”

    Source location

    Marion Glover · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. Derby and Derbyshire

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Kenneth Clarke · 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

    Mr Kenneth Clarke, a 74-year-old resident of a nursing home with dementia and a high risk of choking, left his room on 23 July 2017, accessed bread that had been left out, choked and died. The inquest identified that the nursing home had no formal policies covering resident observation, food storage, kitchen and cupboard locks, dementia residents, or residents on a liquid food diet.

    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 formal policies for observing residents

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that Normanton Village View Nursing Home had no formal policies covering how residents were to be observed, how foods were to be stored, locks on the kitchen and cupboards, dementia residents or residents on a liquid food diet. ”

    Source location

    Mr Kenneth Clarke · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Christine Rosemary Neild · 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

    Christine Rosemary Neild had significant learning difficulties, dysphagia, and required feeding support. She became very unwell and died at Meade Close on 31 January 2020; the medical cause of death was a sub-acute bowel obstruction associated with an incisional hernia. Concerns included accessible gloves and other non-food items, a failure to escalate an earlier ingestion incident or undertake further risk assessment, and the lack of regular sensors to alert staff when residents got up at night.

    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 reliable overnight detection of residents getting up and wandering

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The inquest heard that in care settings such as this one for those with learning disabilities there was no regular use of sensors to alert night staff of a resident getting up and wandering. Staff relied on hearing a resident getting up despite this being difficult if they were delivering personal care onto another resident. ”

    Source location

    Christine Rosemary Neild · 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

    Remind care providers to assess night-time risks and explore technological solutions for supported people who leave their rooms.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Despite the above, we would expect that any individual identified night time risk(s) are suitably risks assessed by the care provider with due consideration of assistive technology as a less restrictive option to mitigating the perceived risk.”

    Source location

    2020-0192-Responses-from-Trafford-Council-and-CQC_Redacted.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 November 2020

    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

    Check the provider’s regulatory compliance at the next service inspection and require improvements or highlight breaches where warranted.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We will check the provider’s compliance with the regulations on our next inspection of the service using our key lines of enquiry and in accordance with CQC’s”

    Source location

    2020-0192-Responses-from-Trafford-Council-and-CQC_Redacted.pdf
    Page 5 · response
    Published 26 November 2020

    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

    Continue using enforcement powers to require improvements when providers are not meeting regulatory requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Where CQC identifies that regulations are not being met, we use our enforcement powers to require improvements to be made. We continue to do this and will share key learning and practice points from the inquest into the death of Miss Christine Neild with inspectors and registered persons.”

    Source location

    2020-0192-Responses-from-Trafford-Council-and-CQC_Redacted.pdf
    Page 6 · response
    Published 26 November 2020

    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

    Carry out resident-specific night-time risk assessments covering sleeping patterns and risks from getting out of bed, and communicate outcomes to staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “9. We have carried out night time risk assessments for each resident. For each resident we have considered their sleeping pattern and for mobile residents we have considered the risk associated with them getting out of bed. We have assessed the precautions that are already in place and any further steps that need to be taken. A copy of the risk assessment has been placed in the individual residents Care Plan and the outcomes of the assessments have been communicated to all staff members. We will review the risk assessment every six months as a minimum or if an issue arises that prompts an earlier review this will be carried out immediately.”

    Source location

    2020-0192-Response-from-Meade-Close-Care-Home_Redacted.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 November 2020

    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

    Routine sensor use cannot be provided because it may restrict liberty without an individual assessment of need and capacity.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “When meeting persons assessed needs, we must always ensure that we adhere to the appropriate legal frameworks. The prescriptive use of sensors could not be routinely provided as there may be implications pertaining to a person’s right to liberty (Art 5 ECHR) without a bespoke assessment of need and capacity.”

    Source location

    2020-0192-Responses-from-Trafford-Council-and-CQC_Redacted.pdf
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 November 2020

    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 resident did not require a night sensor because assessments identified no harm risk, while an alert mat could create a trip hazard.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “From our observations of care planning documents and following discussions with the registered manager of the service Miss Neild did not require a sensor mat to be in place during the night. Support plans and corresponding risk assessments identified Miss Neild was fully mobile during the day and on occasions at night and was not at risk of harm. The inquest heard how Christine would sometimes seek staff out at night as she liked to do this. Placing an alert mat on the floor when someone is fully mobile can present as a trip hazard and becomes an additional risk. Whatever method a service chooses to help keep people safe it must be the least restrictive option, so people retain an element of control and independence in their lives.”

    Source location

    2020-0192-Responses-from-Trafford-Council-and-CQC_Redacted.pdf
    Page 6 · response
    Published 26 November 2020

    Open published response
  8. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Dylan Jay Henty · 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

    Dylan Jay Henty had a complex medical history including schizophrenia, a cerebral tumour, communication difficulties and seizures. He went missing after declining prescribed medication on 17 February 2018, and his body was found at Fistral beach on 21 February 2018; the cause of death was recorded as multiple injuries, with no evidence explaining the apparent fall or how he entered the sea. Concerns included an unsupervised seizure in a bath, inadequate awareness of hoarding, medication compliance, inconsistent reporting of absconding incidents, and arrangements for monitoring residents at risk of absconding.

    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

    Inadequate monitoring arrangements for residents with previous incidents of absconding

    Wider context from the report

    “v. Linked to the above are the arrangements put in place to monitor residents where there have been previous incidents of absconding. There needs to be a clear recognition of what is realistic particularly when set against the desire to ensure the Lodge remains the resident’s home. ”

    Source location

    Dylan Jay Henty · 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

    Inform the multidisciplinary team or make referrals after absconding incidents and conduct six-weekly or more frequent monitoring visits with placement review where needed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “6. Dependent on the level and frequency of absontion the intention and the risk. The appropriate placement of the home would be assessed. The MDT would immediately be informed in the event of any absobtion, if there are relevant teams in place, if not a referral is made. Reviews and monitoring visits take place 6 weekly or more frequent if needed by the care home. The placement of the home is reviewed in these visits if needed and where appropriate.”

    Source location

    2019-0334-Response-by-Pentree-Lodge-Care-Home
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 November 2019

    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

    As an open facility, the home cannot prevent residents leaving until legally required deprivation-of-liberty and capacity documentation is completed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “5. The home recognised that there were communication errors between MDT and can only apologise. Firstly we now liaise with the GP and mental health team regarding relevant issues we face. Notifying all concerned via telephone or email and documenting where appropriate. All incidents of absconding are reported to the relevant bodies ranging from the Care Team to the Police. Measures are then taken to prevent further incidents occuring, such as observations following the relevant laws and legislations such as DOL’s , Capacity Assessment, Mental Health Assessment that need to take place before the home has the power to prevent someone leaving the building as the home is an open facility. Lawfully this documentation needs to be put in place and legislation followed.”

    Source location

    2019-0334-Response-by-Pentree-Lodge-Care-Home
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 November 2019

    Open published response
  9. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Robert Edward LOWE · 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

    Robert Edward LOWE suffered an unwitnessed fall from his bed at Chilton Care Centre on 13 May 2019 and lay undetected for up to two hours. Concerns were raised that pressure mats could be bypassed and that competing audible alarms might prevent important alerts from reaching staff.

    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 pressure mats to prevent residents bypassing bed-exit detection

    Wider context from the report

    “A) Circumstances at Chilton Care Centre are such that the placing of pressure mats (intended to detect residents leaving their beds unaided) is such that residents may bypass those mats; B) The use and operation of audible signals is such that important audible alarms may not come to the attention of staff. Mr LOWE left his bed and fell unwitnessed and then lay undetected by his bed for up to two hours until a scheduled welfare check. The pressure mat may not have been triggered. The basis for my concern is as follows: (A) ████████, Chilton Home Manager said that when she investigated this matter (by which time the mat had been removed) "...there could have been a possibility that Mr LOWE, may have bypassed the mat when getting out at the top of his bed..."(witness statement dated 11th August 2019); and (B) In the same statement, ████████ stated: "Then... when staff carried out another welfare check, they found Mr Lowe on the floor. Three out of 4 staff on duty and only one believes that the mat had not activated and the other 3 could not remember if the sensor mat was making a sound or not, as the emergency buzzer was pressed and other buzzers around the home were also going at the same time, and their priority was Mr Lowe..." ”

    Source location

    Robert Edward LOWE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  10. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Ruth Gregory · 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

    Ruth Gregory had reduced mobility after a fall that led to a total knee replacement and subsequently developed an infected knee. After vomiting suggestive of an upper gastrointestinal bleed, she was readmitted to hospital, deteriorated due to aspiration pneumonia and died on 2 July 2018. The inquest heard that residents were regularly left unsupervised in communal areas, with no detail available about how this risk was managed or how supervision was ensured.

    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 supervision of residents in communal areas of care homes

    Wider context from the report

    “The inquest heard that Mrs Gregory's daughter required the knee replacement after being knocked over by another resident in the care home. The inquest was told that residents were regularly left unsupervised in communal areas of the care home and that this meant similar incidents could reoccur leading to trauma and consequential death. There was no detail available at the inquest about how this risk was managed and arrangements to ensure supervision of communal areas. ”

    Source location

    Ruth Gregory · 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

    Increase staffing levels across homes, including adding a deputy manager and increasing night cover.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This time last year January 2018 we increased the staffing levels in all our homes due to the dependency of the residents we are caring for.”

    Source location

    2019-0017-Response-by-Borough-Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 May 2019

    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

    Existing staffing, risk assessments and nurse-call access are considered sufficient to keep communal areas safe despite occasional short unattended periods.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst there may be occasions when the communal areas are unattended for short periods this has been significantly reduced by the increase in staffing levels.”

    Source location

    2019-0017-Response-by-Borough-Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 May 2019

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026