Recurring concern

Failure to provide face-to-face mental health assessment when clinically indicated

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 17 Dec 2013•Latest report 11 Oct 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures within mental health assessment pathways to provide an in-person assessment, including where a face-to-face assessment is needed after deterioration, psychotic or suicidal symptoms, or where voluntary agreement is absent and compulsory assessment should be considered.

Not included

  • Excludes failures concerning face-to-face consultation or assessment outside mental health care, such as drug dispensing, neurology, general medical diagnosis or unrelated clinical procedures.
  • Excludes generic failures of referral, admission, documentation, staffing or training unless they directly concern whether a clinically indicated face-to-face mental health assessment was provided.
  • Excludes the general use of telephone consultations where the report does not identify a clinically indicated need for face-to-face mental health assessment.
Reports
11

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
11

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
9

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 Care2
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board2
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust2
East London NHS Foundation Trust1
Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership1
Greater Manchester Police1
Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust1
Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust1
LPFT Legal Services1
Metropolitan Police Service1
NAViGO Health and Social Care CIC1
NHS England1
North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust1
Recipient name withheld1
Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys 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. West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Sarah Louise Healey · 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

    Sarah Louise Healey was admitted to hospital on 4 May 2024 with severe malnutrition and complex infections after longstanding mental health difficulties and a highly restricted diet. She deteriorated and died on 1 August 2024 from respiratory failure secondary to pleural effusions, hypoalbuminaemia and malnutrition. The principal concerns were inadequate, inconsistent and insufficiently joined-up mental health care, information sharing and collaboration, particularly for patients with physical health issues, neurodiversity or difficulty attending in-person appointments.

    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 in-person mental health assessments where remote appointments are unsuitable

    Wider context from the report

    “Whilst I heard evidence that local Mental Health (MH) Services (the Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust) had aimed to ensure the recognised ‘triangle of care’ (MH Services, Individual and Family) was in place, this did not (and I understand that national policy and approach may not extend to other services such as the GP, private counselling, or e.g. social services being formally involved and engaged in a comprehensive assessment and hence effective package of treatment and care. I fully appreciate that there are ethical, legal and patient confidentiality issues in patient care. Without, first, better information sharing and a wider, collaborative and joined-up approach – ideally with one individual [whether MH clinician, GP or even carer/family member] able, empowered and with the right legal authority to ensure they have a comprehensive and detailed knowledge of the individual’s various issues – and, second, the development of policy, protocols and guidance to better safeguard mental health patients with accompanying physical health issues, especially those who may have capacity and are neuro-diverse, there is a risk of patients like Sarah not receiving the right, consistent and individually tailored care and treatment which may prevent self-neglect or other serious self-harm. I also heard evidence that there is, nationally, a move away from traditional in-person or face to face appointments as standard and regular practice, to the increased use of online platforms and tools enabling remote attendance. I completely recognise that there are huge benefits in the use of such systems, which bring savings, efficiency and immediacy of access for a huge number of patients. My concern is that they work for some but not all. I was encouraged by evidence I heard from SPFT that in their development of a Care Plan Approach and the inception of Community Mental Health Teams there will be a local policy requirement for MH Practitioners to see patients in person at least six monthly. Sarah’s case graphically demonstrated that there is no substitute for physically seeing a patient, especially when there are other conditions and lifestyle issues so clearly impacting on or resulting from her mental health, such that it seems that an agreed national approach and similar policy requirement may also further help to prevent future deaths of patients like Sarah. ”

    Source location

    Sarah Louise Healey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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

    Local services determine the availability of in-person mental health appointments, and no national policy is currently planned.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Regarding your concerns around the lack of national policy on conducting face to face appointments, while we aim to deliver a shift from analogue to digital through the 10-Year Health Plan, we recognise that, for some patients, in-person appointments are needed. I understand that community mental health teams often provide face-to-face assessments and follow-up reviews based on individual need, and NHS guidance for mental health services (such as NHS Talking Therapies) states that services should offer a choice of in-person or remotely delivered therapies, although the primary consideration is always the clinical appropriateness of the care, and the clinician’s professional opinion will be central to the decision.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 October 2025

    Open published response
  2. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Carl Garry Thompson · 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

    Carl Garry Thompson died from a drug overdose while on leave from Arden Ward, Stepping Hill Hospital, and was likely to have died on the night of 9 March 2022. Concerns included inadequate risk assessments and planning for his leave, insufficient response and escalation after family concerns about increased risk, and failure to provide a face-to-face Community Mental Health Team assessment or allocate a care coordinator before leave.

    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 face-to-face CMHT assessment in line with Trust Policy

    Wider context from the report

    “7. I am concerned that on the 9th March, Carl should have been seen face to face by the CMHT, in line with Trust Policy. Instead he only received a telephone call from a duty worker who had never met him. ”

    Source location

    Carl Garry Thompson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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

    Face-to-face CMHT review was not necessarily required because the patient had not yet been allocated a care coordinator.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Point 7 I am concerned that on the 9th March, Carl should have been seen face to face by the CMHT, in line with Trust Policy. Instead, he only received a telephone call from a duty worker who had never met him.”

    Source location

    Response from Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 17 May 2023

    Open published response
  3. Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Vincenzo Joseph Michael LIPPOLIS · 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

    Vincenzo Joseph Michael LIPPOLIS, aged 21, died on 1 November 2021 after being found hanging in woodland at Sand Dunes, Mablethorpe. Concerns were raised about why he was not admitted under the Mental Health Act after a recent suicide attempt and why a recommended face-to-face assessment was replaced by a telephone call, after which the case was closed the same day.

    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 undertake face-to-face assessment after recent suicide attempts

    Wider context from the report

    “In the NAVIGO report of 22nd October 2022 in response to the mother's request as to "why Vincenzo wasn't sectioned under the Mental Health Act after his detrimental (suicide) attempt on 16th October if only for observation" the SW replies "An admission to a mental health unit would not provide a therapeutic benefit as Vinny's social stressors would still be present in the future". The response does not seem to consider/reflect the admission criteria under s.2 or s.3 of the MHA. Please clarify the rational as the family believe an opportunity has been lost and a death could have been averted. In addition, the recommendation was for a face-to-face meeting with the deceased. Please explain why LPFT made only a telephone call on 17th October when if face to face observations and a more effective analysis had been undertaken particularly after the recent suicide attempts a more effective analysis could have been undertaken. As it was the case was closed on the same day. ”

    Source location

    Vincenzo Joseph Michael LIPPOLIS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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

    No systems or process changes are needed because the assessment followed recognised practice and decisions depend on individual circumstances.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “11 NAViGO does not propose to take any action in relation to its systems or processes in response to the concern raised. The response above sets out the rationale for the decision. It followed an assessment of Mr Lippolis in line with nationally recognised practice by two experienced practitioners. The decision was based on Mr Lippolis’ responses and presentation at the time and the professional judgement of the practitioners. For the reasons given above there is, in NAViGO’s judgement, no change to systems or processes that need be made in order to avoid deaths in future. Decisions will always depend on the particular circumstances of each individual assessment.”

    Source location

    Response from NAViGO
    Page 5 · response
    Published 28 October 2022

    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

    Follow-up after hospital assessment was assigned to local LPFT services, with NAViGO recommending face-to-face contact.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “6 The only observation made on the second concern is that NAViGO's Hospital Liaison Psychiatric Team contacted the relevant LPFT services after the assessment at the Hospital and requested a face to face follow-up with Vincenzo Joseph Michael Lippolis by his local services (as detailed in the written report of ████████, NAViGO Liaison Practitioner, dated 22 October 2022, provided to the Coroner).”

    Source location

    Response from NAViGO
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 October 2022

    Open published response
  4. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Bituin Pizzaro Pimlott · 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

    Bituin Pizzaro Pimlott was found suspended from a ligature at the garage of her home on 22 February 2021. The inquest heard that she had been struggling with her mental health and that telephone consultations were used instead of face-to-face appointments during the pandemic. Concerns included the lack of referral by her GP practice to the crisis team and uncertainty about the guidance for making such 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 provide face-to-face mental health assessment when clinically needed

    Wider context from the report

    “The inquest heard evidence that Mrs Pimlott had been struggling with her mental health in the weeks preceding her death and had contacted her GP on a number of occasions with anxiety and depression. She was prescribed medication but expressed concerns about the impact of the medication. Telephone consultations rather than face to face appointments continued to be used with her due to the pandemic. Pre Covid it was accepted she would have been seen face to face which would have allowed a more comprehensive assessment of her mental health and her reluctance to use medication. Her GP practice did not refer her to the crisis team, and it was unclear what guidance the practice had for their GPs about when they should refer directly to the crisis team. ”

    Source location

    Bituin Pizzaro Pimlott · 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

    Produce and iteratively update standard operating procedures for safe remote general-practice services during changing pandemic requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has brought about an unprecedented acceleration in the adoption of delivering NHS services remotely, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) were produced to ensure general practice is able to operate safely in this context. The SOP which was last published (now retired) which is relevant in this matter is attached for reference. I can confirm that SOPs were iterated throughout the pandemic to meet changing needs and requirements since first publication. This SOP was first published in March 2020.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 September 2021

    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

    Develop joint guidance with the Royal College of General Practitioners on choosing remote or face-to-face consultations, including patient safety and safety-netting.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Additionally, guidance was developed jointly between NHS England and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) on Remote vs Face to Face: which to use and when? and RCGP publish a range of guidance and learning materials on their Covid-19 Resource Hub. These resources underline the importance of ensuring patient safety, shared decision making and that an individual’s needs are paramount.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 September 2021

    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 patients with access to face-to-face GP consultations where clinically appropriate or directly requested.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Access to blended appointments and patient choice in relation to the way in which they wish to consult with their GP”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 September 2021

    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

    Reintroduce advance booking of face-to-face GP appointments across Stockport practices.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Many patients informed us that they preferred to be able to book a face-to-face appointment in advance so as to enable them to manage their healthcare around other commitments and forward booking of appointments has therefore been re-introduced across the Stockport patch.”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 September 2021

    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 telephone triage with safety netting and same-day face-to-face appointments for patients reporting mental health concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Appropriate consultations with safety netting”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 September 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 remote-consultation procedures require safety-focused triage and clinician selection of consultation method according to each patient’s circumstances.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has brought about an unprecedented acceleration in the adoption of delivering NHS services remotely, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) were produced to ensure general practice is able to operate safely in this context. The SOP which was last published (now retired) which is relevant in this matter is attached for reference. I can confirm that SOPs were iterated throughout the pandemic to meet changing needs and requirements since first publication. This SOP was first published in March 2020.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 September 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 appointment systems provide face-to-face consultations where clinically appropriate or directly requested, so further access changes are unnecessary.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Access to blended appointments and patient choice in relation to the way in which they wish to consult with their GP”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 September 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 triage and safety-netting processes adequately manage telephone mental-health presentations, including same-day assessment and referral information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Appropriate consultations with safety netting”

    Source location

    Response from Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 September 2021

    Open published response
  5. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Fadhia SEGULEH · 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

    Fadhia Seguleh was receiving treatment for anxiety and depression when she was found unresponsive, attached to a ligature at her home on 24 February 2021. The concerns included fragmented care and inadequate information sharing between NHS mental health services, her GP and private therapy provider, telephone-only mental health assessments during Covid, and her attending A&E alone during a previous mental health crisis without family input.

    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

    Telephone-only GP assessments of mental health risk and need

    Wider context from the report

    “2. As a consequence of Covid all of the assessments of her by her GP in relation to her mental health were done via telephone. Prior to Covid it was likely that they would have been done face to face. It was accepted that assessments of mental health risk and understanding of need was far easier to assess face to face. ”

    Source location

    Fadhia SEGULEH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Gregory Rekowski · 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 Gregory Rekowski was detained under the Mental Health Act after being found trying to tie a ligature, discharged from hospital, and later posted “last goodbyes” on social media. He was found hanging at his home on 29 October 2017. The report identified concerns about delays, communication breakdowns, unclear responsibilities and procedures among Pennine Care NHS Trust, Greater Manchester Police and North West Ambulance Service, including the lack of a face-to-face 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

    Unavailability of an out-of-hours mental-health community response service for face-to-face assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “The Court heard evidence there is no Mental Health Community Response team available to deal with mental health issues out of hours. The only out of hours service is in A&E which would necessitate someone attending there. Evidence was given as to the substantial increase in such issues being reported to GMP. The Court heard how there is now a mental health professional within the GMP control room to assist with the calls received. However the main issues are in attending to conduct face to face assessments. The police are the service who have a power to enter property, unlike other services. Therefore whilst they may not be best placed in respect of the assessment they are often called. Given the issue in respect of resources laid throughout this Inquest the Court would question the lack of this Mental Health provision. ”

    Source location

    Mr Gregory Rekowski · 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

    CRT cannot respond to all mental-health incidents because demand exceeds its commissioned capacity and requires triage.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “However, it must be recognised that the most significant limitation on the service is the availability of CRT resources. The volume of incidents where a relevant person has mental health needs exceeds CRT capacity and this burden requires the VSU to act as a filter focusing CRT staff time to providing the commissioned service.”

    Source location

    2018-0411-Response-by-Greater-Manchester-Police
    Page 4 · response
    Published 28 December 2018

    Open published response
  7. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Rosario CORDERO-SANZ · 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

    Rosario (known as Charo) Cordero-Sanz died after jumping in front of a train at Bethnal Green Underground Station on 14 July 2018. The concerns included gaps in special police officers’ access to information, understanding of missing-person and mental-health procedures, communication with a non-native English-speaking friend, and the failure to identify her as a high-risk missing person.

    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 obtain direct or supported assessment of a person when access is challenged by concerns about police uniforms

    Wider context from the report

    “2. In addition, the jury heard as follows. - The three police officers did not appear to have an in depth understanding of the misper process. - They did not (save for one who had attended such calls before) appear to have an in depth understanding of the s136 Mental Health Act / mental health potential issues. - They did not consider using language line to assist them in obtaining information from the non native English speaking friend, with whom they spoke outside the building where Ms Cordero-Sanz was staying with a friend. Being able to speak in his native language might have facilitated the informant to give fuller details, such as the fact that Ms Cordero-Sanz was by now hearing voices. - Having been told that she would be upset by their uniforms, they did not insist on seeing Ms Cordero-Sanz to assess her for themselves, or call for the assistance of a plain clothes colleague, or suggest that they speak to the friend who was sitting inside with her. - Nobody thought of calling an ambulance that night, save for the CAD (computer aided despatch) operator who took the call in the first place, but he did not mention he had done so to anyone else. I wonder whether this suggests a training need, and/or whether, given the difficulties in maintaining skills on only 15 hours a month, consideration could be given to teaming special officers with regulars? ”

    Source location

    Rosario CORDERO-SANZ · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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

    Suggested scene-assessment actions will not be made mandatory because they may be impracticable or inappropriate in some circumstances.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It has been established that the MSC officers who attended the address were not provided with the full details of the call. The informants whom they spoke to did not indicate that Ms Cordero-Sanz was in immediate danger. However it is recognised that if they had obtained more information at the scene utilising Language Line they may have altered their risk assessment and seen her in person. Whilst the suggested considerations have merit, we would not seek to make them mandatory actions as they may not be appropriate or practicable in all circumstances. Had the MSC officers known Ms Cordero-Sanz was a high risk missing person, MPS policy would have required them to physically see her and ensure she was safe and of no danger to herself or others.”

    Source location

    2018-0307-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
    Page 3 · response
    Published 17 February 2019

    Open published response
  8. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Jamie Neil Elliott · 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

    Jamie Neil Elliott died by hanging at his home on 18 November 2016, with an inquest conclusion of suicide. Before his death, he had expressed clear, detailed and escalating suicidal ideation and had declined offered voluntary inpatient admission. Concerns included failures to contact his private therapist and to provide a face-to-face psychiatric assessment after his condition deteriorated.

    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 timely face-to-face psychiatric assessment after worsened-condition referral

    Wider context from the report

    “2. There should be a psychiatric assessment, by a Consultant Psychiatrist in circumstances where there is a referral to the Home Treatment Team where a patient’s condition has worsened. Ideally this should be within 48 hours and should be a face to face psychiatric assessment. ”

    Source location

    Jamie Neil Elliott · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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

    Require escalation of Home Treatment referrals not seen within 48 hours to a consultant psychiatrist or team manager for prioritised review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to face to face psychiatric assessments by the Home Treatment team the Operational Policy has been updated to include the following:”

    Source location

    2017-0135-Response-by-East-London-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 July 2017

    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 routine doctor review within 72 hours for Home Treatment referrals without prior professional assessment, with out-of-hours emergency review by on-call psychiatry.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to face to face psychiatric assessments by the Home Treatment team the Operational Policy has been updated to include the following:”

    Source location

    2017-0135-Response-by-East-London-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 July 2017

    Open published response
  9. Preston and West Lancashire

    AI-generated summary

    Stephen McDermott · 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 McDermott was found deceased at home on 25 May 2015, having died sometime earlier as a result of the intentional application of a ligature; the inquest recorded the medical cause of death as hanging and concluded suicide. In the preceding months, he had presented repeatedly after overdoses and being recovered from train tracks, but was discharged without mental health follow-up. The principal concerns included fragmented and poorly used records, incomplete assessments and record keeping, insufficient consideration of overlapping mental health and substance misuse issues, missed opportunities for face-to-face assessment, limited information sharing between services, and an incomplete incident 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

    Cancellation of planned face-to-face mental health assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “6) Following a telephone call made to the SPOA by Mr McDermott’s mother on 1 April 2015, in which she advised that she feared he was at risk of suicide and had written a suicide note, contact was made with Mr McDermott who confirmed he could keep himself safe so an appointment was made for him to have a face-to-face assessment at the SPOA on 9 April 2015. However, this appointment was cancelled by the SPOA team on 7 April because Mr McDermott had been assessed by ████████ on 6 April following his attendance at Accident and Emergency. The expert’s view, with which ████████ agreed, was that this was a missed opportunity to have a face-to-face assessment of Mr McDermott in a non-crisis situation; ”

    Source location

    Stephen McDermott · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  10. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Jeffrey Gash · 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

    Jeffrey Gash died after hanging himself on 30 September 2013, following contacts with his GP and the Crisis Team while reporting that he was feeling worse and hearing voices. The concerns included insufficient telephone assessment and exploration of his symptoms, failure to arrange or escalate to a face-to-face assessment, unclear policies and recording regarding home visits, and inadequate risk assessment and management.

    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 obtain or require face-to-face assessment when clinically indicated

    Wider context from the report

    “4. Given that there was an insufficiency of enquiry into the deceased’s state of mind and in particular, a failure to further explore the issue of him claiming to hear voices, on inadequate assessment of risk was undertaken and it was accepted by the Trust in evidence that there ought to have been a face to face consultation with the deceased and that had not agreed to it voluntarily, then there ought to have been a compulsory assessment. ”

    Source location

    Jeffrey Gash · 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

    Remind staff to explore and use alternative venues for appointments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I also acknowledge the conclusions from the inquest that further options may have been available in the absence of Mr Gash agreeing to see the crisis team at the hospital base, and indeed am aware of instances where staff have used alternative venues for appointments. Staff have been reminded of the need to explore and utilise alternative appointment venues.”

    Source location

    2014-0377-Response-by-Tees-Esk-and-Wear-Valleys-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 August 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

    Share recommendations with the crisis team and reinforce consultation with colleagues and medical staff for complex assessments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Since Mr Gash's sad death, the individual nurse has critically reflected upon this at length with the team manager during her period of informal capability management described under point 1 above. I agree that more in-depth exploration of his reasons for not wishing to attend should have been undertaken. The Trust Did Not Attend policy does highlight that the nurse should have contacted the GP immediately to agree a management plan, in situations where high risks have potentially been identified. As noted above, the individual nurse has undergone a period of observed practice such that the Advanced Practitioner and Team Manager are now satisfied that she would now manage this situation differently, in that issues would be explored in more depth.”

    Source location

    2014-0377-Response-by-Tees-Esk-and-Wear-Valleys-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 August 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026