Recurring concern

Unclear responsibility for prescribing and medication advice

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 4 Dec 2014•Latest report 9 Dec 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in which clinicians or services do not clearly define, communicate, retain or act on responsibility for prescribing decisions and associated medication advice, including responsibility at interfaces between specialist recommendations, non-prescriber advice and GP prescribing.

Not included

  • Excludes general unsafe prescribing decisions where responsibility was clear and the deficiency is the clinical choice, dose or indication.
  • Excludes generic medication counselling omissions where no uncertainty or failure concerning responsibility for prescribing or medication advice is identified.
  • Excludes ordinary communication, training or documentation deficiencies that do not create unclear accountability for prescribing or medication advice.
  • Excludes medication administration, dispensing, supply, monitoring and reconciliation failures unless they directly arise from unclear prescribing or medication-advice responsibility.
Reports
6

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
7

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
17

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 Central East Integrated Care Board2
Barts Health NHS Trust1
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust1
Maylands Health Care1
NHS England1
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust1
North East London NHS Foundation Trust1
Oakwood Medical Centre1
Orchard Surgery, Melbourn1
Partnership of East London Co-operatives (PELC) Limited1

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. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Urielle Mayila Kuyenga · 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

    Urielle Mayila Kuyenga, a four-year-old girl with sickle-cell disease, died in hospital on 4 December 2023 from sepsis resulting from bacterial pneumonia. The report identifies failures to ensure administration of prescribed prophylactic penicillin and failures by doctors to identify her sickle-cell diagnosis during three presentations for respiratory infection as contributory factors.

    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

    Breakdown of communication about responsibility for penicillin prescription and dispensation

    Wider context from the report

    “1. As a patient with Sickle Cell Disease, Urielle was prescribed prophylactic penicillin to mitigate the risk of her developing fatal symptoms arising from typical respiratory infections. Urielle’s mother chose not to collect those prescriptions and administer penicillin to Urielle. While specialist doctors believed that her GP was monitoring the prescription and dispensation of the penicillin, whilst Urielle’s GP was misled by Urielle’s mother that the hospital were dispensing the medication directly. The breakdown of communication means that Urielle was left unprotected from opportunistic infection which caused this avoidable death. ”

    Source location

    Urielle Mayila Kuyenga · 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

    Proactively contact patients with sickle cell disease annually for medication reviews, including Penicillin V prescribing and compliance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Having identified these patients from the Audit, all patients with Sickle Cell Disease are proactively contacted by the practice for a medication review. This includes reviewing Penicillin V prescribing and compliance as a key factor. Completed and Continuing on an annual basis.”

    Source location

    Response from Maylands Healthcare Surgery
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Liaise directly with secondary or tertiary specialists when responsibility for Penicillin V prescribing or dispensing requires clarification.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• If there are any concerns regarding who is taking responsibility for prescribing and dispensing Penicillin V prophylaxis, the practice will directly liaise with the patient’s secondary or”

    Source location

    Response from Maylands Healthcare Surgery
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Move all patients with sickle cell disease to electronic repeat dispensing for Penicillin antibiotics.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• All patients with Sickle Cell Disease have had their medications changed to electronic repeat dispensing. This ensures patients can access regular, ongoing supplies of their Penicillin antibiotics from their pharmacy without needing a new prescription from their GP each time. We have also liaised with our on-site pharmacist to ensure that any uncollected prescriptions for Sickle Cell Disease patients are actively communicated back to us at the practice to identify concerns early. Completed and Continuing.”

    Source location

    Response from Maylands Healthcare Surgery
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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 the on-site pharmacist to communicate uncollected sickle cell disease prescriptions to the practice.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• All patients with Sickle Cell Disease have had their medications changed to electronic repeat dispensing. This ensures patients can access regular, ongoing supplies of their Penicillin antibiotics from their pharmacy without needing a new prescription from their GP each time. We have also liaised with our on-site pharmacist to ensure that any uncollected prescriptions for Sickle Cell Disease patients are actively communicated back to us at the practice to identify concerns early. Completed and Continuing.”

    Source location

    Response from Maylands Healthcare Surgery
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Increase access to shared care records to improve communication between primary and secondary care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the absence of an SCP, clear lines of communication should have been established between Urielle’s specialist in the hospital and GP. The overall responsibility for her care, including monitoring and issuing the prescription, should have remained with the hospital. The government is committed to improving this communication between primary and secondary care as outlined in the 10 Year Health Plan in the section on the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ recommendations. These include work to improve information technology through initiatives such as increasing access to shared care records and developing greater interoperability of electronic patient records (EPRs), starting with the sharing of structured medication information.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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 greater interoperability of electronic patient records, starting with structured medication information sharing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the absence of an SCP, clear lines of communication should have been established between Urielle’s specialist in the hospital and GP. The overall responsibility for her care, including monitoring and issuing the prescription, should have remained with the hospital. The government is committed to improving this communication between primary and secondary care as outlined in the 10 Year Health Plan in the section on the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ recommendations. These include work to improve information technology through initiatives such as increasing access to shared care records and developing greater interoperability of electronic patient records (EPRs), starting with the sharing of structured medication information.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Responsibility for addressing the prophylactic penicillin communication concern lies with other bodies.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. As a patient with Sickle Cell Disease, Urielle was prescribed prophylactic penicillin to mitigate the risk of her developing fatal symptoms arising from typical respiratory infections. Urielle’s mother chose not to collect those prescriptions and administer penicillin to Urielle. Urielle’s specialist doctors believed that her GP was monitoring the prescription and dispensation of the penicillin, whilst Urielle’s GP was misled by Urielle’s mother that the hospital were dispensing the medication directly. The breakdown of communication means that Urielle was left unprotected from opportunist infection which caused this avoidable death.”

    Source location

    Response from Partnership of East London Co-operatives Ltd
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    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

    Without a shared care protocol, the hospital should retain responsibility for care, monitoring and issuing the prescription.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the absence of an SCP, clear lines of communication should have been established between Urielle’s specialist in the hospital and GP. The overall responsibility for her care, including monitoring and issuing the prescription, should have remained with the hospital. The government is committed to improving this communication between primary and secondary care as outlined in the 10 Year Health Plan in the section on the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ recommendations. These include work to improve information technology through initiatives such as increasing access to shared care records and developing greater interoperability of electronic patient records (EPRs), starting with the sharing of structured medication information.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 December 2025

    Open published response
  2. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Amy Jade BUTCHER · 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

    Amy Jade Butcher was declared deceased on 14 May 2023 after suspending herself with a ligature around her neck during a heightened anxiety crisis. The inquest identified concerns about a confusing, fragmented system for prescribing mental health medication, and about the decision not to prescribe Lorazepam despite its previous effectiveness for Amy.

    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 a clear prescribing decision-making and coordination system for mental health medication

    Wider context from the report

    “Evidence heard at inquest identified a muddled and unclear system for the prescription of medication to someone in Amy’s situation. The Emergency Department Consultant who saw Amy in crisis on the 10ᵗʰ May 2024 stated that for patients like Amy she had previously prescribed Lorazepam upon discharge home, but could only do this if the Mental Health Team in the ED requested her to do so, which they did not do on this occasion. The following day, Amy herself tried to obtain a prescription of Lorazepam by dialling NHS 111 Option 2 (Mental Health line). She spoke to a mental health practitioner who told her that NHS 111 Option 2 did not have the ability to prescribe medication, and she would need to call NHS 111 Option 1 and speak to an Out of Hours GP instead. Amy contacted NHS 111 Option 1 and spoke to an Out of Hours GP, who worked for a private company which had implemented a ban on the prescription of Lorazepam due to its highly addictive properties. As such, even if the GP had considered Lorazepam to be required in Amy’s case, he could not have prescribed it. The GP prescribed different PRN medications, which were subsequently found in Amy’s system after her death. Amy’s own GP gave evidence stating that the system for prescribing mental health medication was confusing. He stated that mental health medications prescribed to a patient by a GP (such as antidepressants) before a Mental Health Team became involved, remained the responsibility of the GP. However, once a Mental Health Team became involved, any changes to the medication regime could only be made by the Mental Health Team. In addition, some medication would be prescribed by the Mental Health Team directly, whilst other would be prescribed separately by the GP. The GP described the situation as one of there simply being ‘too many chiefs’. The net effect of the current system in place is that an individual in Amy’s situation finds themselves needing to make multiple telephone calls or contacts with NHS 111 Option 1, NHS 111 Option 2, their Out of Hours GP Service, their own GP and their Mental Health Team, in order to try and obtain either a new prescription or change their current prescription if their mental health suddenly deteriorates. There is evidently no single point of contact, or single decision maker regarding prescriptions in these cases. The evidence suggests that the situation is exacerbated even further if the individual’s mental health deterioration occurs Out of Hours. ”

    Source location

    Amy Jade BUTCHER · 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

    Add prescribing responsibilities and communication instructions to standard letters sent to GPs when service users join CRHT caseloads.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To simplify the position, we have added the following information to our standard letters which are sent to GPs when service users are taken onto CRHT caseloads:”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Remind staff to liaise directly with GPs when requesting adjustments to medications already prescribed by GPs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Staff have been reminded of the need to liaise directly with GPs with any requests to adjust medications already prescribed by GPs in the circumstances described above.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Undertake a joint clinical audit with primary care colleagues three months after implementing the revised CRHT wording and report results to the Trust-wide Safety Group.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “By way of assurance, the clinical audit team will undertake a joint audit with primary care colleagues 3 months post implementation of the above wording being introduced, the results of which will be reported to our Trust wide Safety Group for consideration.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    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

    Commissioning NHS 111 Option 1 and out-of-hours GP services is outside the respondent’s responsibility.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I recognise that Amy interacted with multiple prescribing pathways within the NHS system and whilst NSFT is not the responsible commissioner for NHS 111 Option 1, GP surgeries out of hours GP services we have raised the issue with our Integrated Commissioning Boards with a view to identifying any possible improvements that can be made as a result of the concern raised.”

    Source location

    Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 November 2024

    Open published response
  3. Derby and Derbyshire

    AI-generated summary

    Melvyn Lee BLOUNT · 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

    Melvyn Blount experienced a rapid deterioration in his mental health, including confusion and delusional thoughts, and died from asphyxiation on 14 January 2023 after tying a ligature. Concerns included the lack of a clear policy for ensuring that drug alerts are communicated when a non-prescriber requests a prescription from a GP who does not see the patient, and uncertainty about responsibility for informing the patient.

    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 a clear policy for communicating drug alerts when a GP prescribes at the behest of a non-prescriber without seeing the patient

    Wider context from the report

    “Mr Blount had a consultation with a non-prescribing mental health practitioner at his GP practice who considered that he would benefit from the prescription of zopiclone. As a non prescriber he had to seek the assistance of a GP to actually prescribe the tablets and this was done after discussion between the two professionals. There was no direct contact between the GP and Mr Blount. The mental health practitioner was aware of a relevant drug alert but did not inform Mr Blount. From the evidence it is apparent that at the point of prescribing any drugs a GP will receive a pop up on their computer if there are any drug alerts pertinent to the drug being prescribed. The GP will then be able to determine if the drug alert is relevant and if so should be passed on to the patient. It was clear that if the GP had direct contact with the patient it would be their responsibility to digest the alert and inform the patient. What remains unclear is what should happen to ensure that an alert is digested and disseminated when it is the GP who receives the alert but is prescribing at the behest of a non prescriber and so does not see the patient. The lack of a clear policy gives rise to the risk that drug alerts are not seen by non-prescribers and therefore not communicated or are being seen or known about but still not communicated. It also remained unclear from the evidence whether the GP prescribing the drug remains ultimately responsible for ensuring that patients are properly informed and if they do, how they can satisfy themselves that relevant information is passed to the patient without seeing them personally. ”

    Source location

    Melvyn Lee BLOUNT · 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

    Provide daily GP debriefs and clinical supervision for mental health workers, including medication safety, alerts, side effects and documentation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In October 2023 the practice introduced a daily debrief with a General Practitioner for all mental health workers.”

    Source location

    Response from Lister House Surgery
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 September 2023

    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

    Allocate non-prescriber prescribing decisions to GP partners with protected time and require GP review, debriefing and drug-safety checks before prescribing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The practice prescribing lead Partner ████████, in conjunction with our practice and PCN pharmacy team, reviewed our prescribing practices when non prescribing clinicians are consulting patients. We have a number of non-prescribers including mental health workers, nurses, physician associate and clinical pharmacists. This project started in July 2023. Following consultation with the nurse lead, clinical pharmacist lead, and practice manager, a PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act) quality improvement project was commenced. The project aimed to ensure the processes around non-prescribers and recommending medications are robust with clear accountability and clinical governance processes. We have reviewed our prior method whereby a prescription is prepared by the non-prescriber and a red flag on the electronic prescription alerted the prescriber to check the prescription before signing.”

    Source location

    Response from Lister House Surgery
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 September 2023

    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

    Expand TeamNet for all staff to circulate MHRA alerts, record review and track clinicians’ understanding.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “MHRA and prescribing updates are a regular agenda item on the monthly whole practice clinical meeting led by the pharmacy team. A new module called ‘TeamNet’ will be expanded for use by all staff and MHRA alerts will be circulated on TeamNet for review. A record of this will be kept and updated to ensure all clinicians have read and understood the update.”

    Source location

    Response from Lister House Surgery
    Page 4 · response
    Published 26 September 2023

    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

    Trial sending selected patients AccuRx messages linking to medication information leaflets, informed by clinical judgement and confidentiality considerations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The practice has also discussed how we can safely convey drug safety information and all recognised side effects in a drug information leaflet to patients. This includes the challenges around patient confidentiality and consent to share this beyond the patient consulting. The practice is trailing sending to some patients, based on clinical judgement, an AccuRx message with an NHS link to the medication patient information leaflet. A demonstration of this has been shared to the whole practice at the clinical meeting on 12th October 2023, alongside a recorded video demonstration which will be sent in our next weekly update.”

    Source location

    Response from Lister House Surgery
    Page 4 · response
    Published 26 September 2023

    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 practice considers that it has taken the necessary action to address the Coroner’s concerns and does not identify a need for further work.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We would once again like to offer our sincere condolences to the family. We trust this report confirms that we have taken necessary action to address the concerns raised by the Coroner. We would be happy to provide further information to assist the Coroner if required.”

    Source location

    Response from Lister House Surgery
    Page 5 · response
    Published 26 September 2023

    Open published response
  4. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

    AI-generated summary

    Edward Angus Mallen · 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 Angus Mallen, who was suffering from depression and had disclosed suicidal thoughts, died after lying across a railway line and being struck by a train on 9 February 2015. The concerns included unclear responsibility for his care, advice from a non-prescriber about medication, lack of information about possible worsening symptoms and increased suicidal feelings, and inadequate awareness of routes to further psychiatric advice.

    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 GPs to recognise their responsibility for prescribing and medication advice

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The GP, ████████ understood that he had been instructed by a member of the Assessment and Referral Team to prescribe citalopram. The member of staff with whom he spoke was a nurse with no prescriber status. The GP felt bound to follow the advice given seemingly without appreciating that prescribing was his responsibility and with it the obligation to advise the patient about the medication. 2. The trust acknowledges that it would be inappropriate for non psychiatrist members of staff to be advising GPs on medication and that this must be communicated to all staff. ”

    Source location

    Edward Angus Mallen · 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

    Non-prescriber mental health staff advising GPs on medication

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The GP, ████████ understood that he had been instructed by a member of the Assessment and Referral Team to prescribe citalopram. The member of staff with whom he spoke was a nurse with no prescriber status. The GP felt bound to follow the advice given seemingly without appreciating that prescribing was his responsibility and with it the obligation to advise the patient about the medication. 2. The trust acknowledges that it would be inappropriate for non psychiatrist members of staff to be advising GPs on medication and that this must be communicated to all staff. ”

    Source location

    Edward Angus Mallen · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. East London

    AI-generated summary

    EMMA LOUISE BRAY · 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

    Emma Louise Bray had a history of problems with mood and was assessed by mental health services in January 2015 after her mood deteriorated. Her family reported worsening symptoms, hopelessness, suicidal research and concerns about her medication, but several planned referrals, follow-up actions and communication of information did not occur. She hanged herself on 25 February 2015. Concerns included incomplete medication and treatment histories, failures in follow-up and referral, inadequate response to family information, failures to record emails, unclear medication-risk communication, and wider deficiencies in service guidance and monitoring.

    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 clarity about responsibility for communicating medication risks

    Wider context from the report

    “During the evidence I was told that a number of things had not happened that ought to have done: (a) A proper medication history was not taken on assessment (b) EB’s treatment and medication history were not obtained from either public or private sector providers. (c) Had EB’s history been obtained she should have been referred to a psychiatrist following assessment, to be seen and assessed within 14 days. (d) ████████ felt that there was an underestimate of the level and complexity of EB’s condition. (e) EB remained with the Intake team for the whole period of her contact with the service. This appears to have occurred because of a failure to make a referral rather than because of any positive decision to retain her within the team. (f) EB should have been referred to an appropriate service, probably initially the BIT. This would have provided her with better support and regular monitoring. (g) Even within the IT there was a failure to follow EB up. Telephone contact should have been made with her by seven days after the initial assessment. (h) There should have been regular contact with EB thereafter, initiated by IT. (i) Important information was provided by EB’s family about the changes in her presentation, most notably on 19 January, 22 January and then from 19 February 2015 onwards. Nothing happened in response to these reports. The information should have been placed before the Intake Team MDT to discuss her care. (j) Had the information been provided EB should have been seen by the team and, in response to the information of 19 February 2015 at the latest, had a psychiatric assessment. (k) The emails sent by EB’s family were not placed on her notes; accordingly other members of staff looking at her care were not aware of the family’s concerns. (l) Risks associated with the drug Sertraline do not appear to have been communicated to EB and her family. Were the drug was recommended by a psychiatrist who had not seen or assessed EB it was unclear where responsibility for advising about risk lay. On a systemic level, the following issues are of concern: (a) Absence of guidelines about what information must be obtained on assessment, including the medication history. (b) Absence of guidance about where that information should be obtained from: the patient / primary sources. (c) A lack of clarity amongst staff about when to retain patients under the IT and when to refer out of it intake to other services. (d) Lack of clarity about who should be the person between patients and the IT. (e) Lack of guidance about what to do when patients are not engaging directly with the IT but there is reason for concern about them. (f) A lack of monitoring / auditing of the passage of patients through the service to see whether cases are being managed and progressed as they ought to be. (g) An absence of guidelines giving staff timescales within which referrals should take place. (h) A lack of appreciation of the need to create a plan with timescales for further treatment / referral to take place. (i) A lack of clear information about the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a psychiatrist to make recommendations about the medication without a full medical history. (j) A lack of clear information about the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a psychiatrist to make recommendations about the medication without seeing the patient in person. (k) A lack of clarity about whose responsibility it is to communicate risks about medication to the individual when the medication is recommended by the WFAAT psychiatrist but prescribed by the GP. This was particularly the case with the Sertraline prescribed to EB, which apparently does have specific associated risks that must be warned of. (l) The lack of apparent process or procedure to ensure that emails sent to staff directly are placed on an individual’s notes. (m) Any proper understanding by staff of risk assessment in the context of self-harm. The risk assessment tool in use appeared very basic and not one that provided any real assistance to staff. ”

    Source location

    EMMA LOUISE BRAY · 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

    Review and implement AABIT standard operating procedures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The plan has five broad objectives within which your specific concerns have been addressed. These are:”

    Source location

    2015-0438-Response-by-NELFT-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 November 2015

    Open published response
  6. Bedfordshire and Luton

    AI-generated summary

    James Duncan STEWART · 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

    James Duncan STEWART, a resident of Manton Heights Nursing Home, was admitted to hospital with decreased mobility and responsiveness after his Parkinson’s medication had apparently not been provided. He was discharged to Airedale Nursing Home for end-of-life care and died on 21 April 2014. The principal concerns were the absence of a system to check medication details with a previous GP practice and uncertainty about responsibility for confirming the correct medication prescription.

    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 General Practitioner to confirm the correct medication rather than relying on nursing-home staff

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There did not appear to be any system whereby when a new GP Practice is requested to prescribe medication from a patient’s Nursing Home the details are not checked with the previous Practice. Such a system would have highlighted the fact that Mr. Stewart’s Co-Careldopa medication had not been included. (2) It was felt by those giving evidence from the GP Practice, and from the two Nursing Homes, that the correct medication to be prescribed should be a matter for the General Practitioner to confirm rather than relying upon qualified staff from the Home. They also felt that the Clinical Commissioning Group were the obvious body to ensure that a robust and consistent system is put in place. ”

    Source location

    James Duncan STEWART · 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 and consult stakeholders on a medication-reconciliation protocol for transfers into care homes and registration with a new GP.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the meantime, in liaison with GP colleagues, Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group have developed a protocol for reconciliation of medications when people are transferred into care homes and are registered with a new GP. The protocol is under consultation with stakeholders in primary and social care. This will also be shared with the commissioners of General Practitioners, NHS England Area Team, for them to consider whether contractual actions can be taken to strengthen compliance with the protocol. An action plan has been written to drive this work forward and progress will be monitored by our Patient Safety and Quality Committee.”

    Source location

    2014-0526-Response-by-Bedfordshire-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 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

    Share the medication-reconciliation protocol with GP commissioners and NHS England’s Area Team for consideration of contractual compliance measures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the meantime, in liaison with GP colleagues, Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group have developed a protocol for reconciliation of medications when people are transferred into care homes and are registered with a new GP. The protocol is under consultation with stakeholders in primary and social care. This will also be shared with the commissioners of General Practitioners, NHS England Area Team, for them to consider whether contractual actions can be taken to strengthen compliance with the protocol. An action plan has been written to drive this work forward and progress will be monitored by our Patient Safety and Quality Committee.”

    Source location

    2014-0526-Response-by-Bedfordshire-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 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

    Write an action plan to drive the medication-reconciliation work forward and monitor its progress through the Patient Safety and Quality Committee.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In the meantime, in liaison with GP colleagues, Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group have developed a protocol for reconciliation of medications when people are transferred into care homes and are registered with a new GP. The protocol is under consultation with stakeholders in primary and social care. This will also be shared with the commissioners of General Practitioners, NHS England Area Team, for them to consider whether contractual actions can be taken to strengthen compliance with the protocol. An action plan has been written to drive this work forward and progress will be monitored by our Patient Safety and Quality Committee.”

    Source location

    2014-0526-Response-by-Bedfordshire-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 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

    Prescribing GPs are responsible for ensuring medication meets patients’ clinical needs, rather than relying on non-clinical care-home staff to identify errors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(2) It is agreed by our GP members that it is the responsibility of the prescribing GP that the correct medication is prescribed to meet the clinical needs of the person and it should not be dependent upon non-clinical staff in Care Homes to challenge the accuracy of this process.”

    Source location

    2014-0526-Response-by-Bedfordshire-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 December 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026