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. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Sean Christopher Seabourne · 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

    Sean Christopher Seabourne, who had recurrent depression and anxiety, sought help from his GP and mental health services in August 2013. On 1 September 2013, he hanged himself at his place of work in Redditch. The report identified concerns about communication and unclear roles between mental health teams, including the failure to ensure that information about his high risk and settled plans to kill himself was formally documented and shared.

    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 assessment of patients at high risk of concealed suicide

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The Community Mental Health Team assessed Mr Seabourne as being a man with a definite plan to kill himself which he sought to hide from professionals. The CMHT referred Mr Seabourne on an urgent basis to the Assessment Team making it plain that he was making positive plans and that he should be seen on the same day with a view to a formal assessment to consider a voluntary admission to hospital or Crisis Support. It was stressed by CMHT that Mr Seabourne needed to be seen face to face because of his ability to "dissemble" and thus hide his plans to kill himself. There was no written confirmation of the CMHT duty workers view and requests. (2) The Assessment Team denied being asked to assess Mr Seabourne and although the team member acknowledged that he had been made aware that Mr Seabourne was deliberately concealing settled plans to kill himself he took the view that the matter was not urgent and contends that he was not asked to perform an assessment. The team member concerned indicated that in his judgement a request for crisis support does not require an assessment of the patient. (3) It was clear from the evidence that there was a lack of effective communication between the separate teams which comprise of Mental Health Services within the County with the Team Manager of the Assessment Team being unaware of (upon the end of the 72 hour involvement with Mr Seabourne on the part of his team) whether the CMHT would become automatically involved with onward work with Home Treatment Team. It appears that there are systemic failings in terms of communication and understanding of roles and responsibilities in respect of the patient whom everyone acknowledged was at high risk and with settled plans to kill himself. It appears from the evidence that a lack of formal communication where all details are past from team to team led to a situation where those having contact with Mr Seabourne were unaware of the real risk that he might kill himself. Had all of the concerns of the GP and original psychiatric nurse who referred Mr Seabourne been formally documented and disseminated to each of the new teams then it is likely that he would have been seen face to face and a formal assessment considering whether he should have been admitted to hospital would have been undertaken. This may well have changed the outcome in this case. ”

    Source location

    Sean Christopher Seabourne · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026