Recurring concern

Unreliable Mental Health Act nearest-relative decision safeguards

First to latest report 16 Jun 2023 — 29 May 2025

Reports that mention this concern
4
Times this concern has been raised
4
Stated actions linked to this concern
0

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the dedicated Mental Health Act nearest-relative process, including clear legal tests for nearest-relative discharge applications, accurate information about statutory rights to request assessment or review, and reliable consideration and progression of those applications or requests.

What is not included
  • Excludes general Mental Health Act assessment, detention, discharge or treatment failures where nearest-relative rights or applications are not the deficient control.
  • Excludes generic family involvement, communication or consent failures without a Mental Health Act nearest-relative statutory-rights or application context.
  • Excludes failures in care after a lawful and adequately assessed Mental Health Act decision where the nearest-relative process itself operated reliably.

Reports and published responses 4 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Callum James Hargreaves · 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

    Callum James Hargreaves, who had a history of substance misuse and housing instability, was found dead in the sea on 20 January 2024 after being removed from a cliff edge and assessed under the Mental Health Act the previous day. The principal concerns were that the rationale for not pursuing a short-term admission was not recorded, and that clinicians did not further explore or test Callum’s refusal to allow his mother to be informed of his discharge. The report also noted that the Nearest Relative’s details appeared not to have been completed on the MH 1.

    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 complete Nearest Relative details on the MH 1

    Wider context from the report

    “I accepted independent expert evidence that the mental health act assessment had been thorough and appropriately concluded there were no grounds in law for detaining Callum. Additionally, I accepted evidence given by the clinicians that while NICE guidance did allow for short-term admissions to manage a period of crisis in a patient presenting with complex PTSD/EUPD, that was not indicated here. It was identified that the rationale for reaching that decision was not recorded in the notes. This is a matter I have taken up separately with those responsible for the AMHP. 1) It was accepted in evidence that, owing to the decisions made by Callum, there were only limited options available to the clinicians. Of note, an offer to have personal follow-up by one of the clinicians involved in the assessment through the HTT was rejected. Additionally, the possibility of prescribing additional Diazepam was correctly discounted once it became evident Callum was already sourcing illicitly more than could be prescribed safely. 2) Callum refused permission for his mother (described as his rock) to be informed of his imminent discharge. On her evidence, she had been (wrongly) advised by police that her son would be detained and was safe. There was no evidence that this decision by Callum was explored or tested by the clinicians – instead it simply appeared to have been accepted by the clinicians without further enquiry. The independent expert was of the view that in a situation like this, where the assessing team had very few ‘levers’ available to it, Callum’s mother was potentially one that could and should have been explored further. It was noted that GMC guidance allows for further enquiry, specifically that 58. If an adult patient who has capacity to make the decision refuses to consent to information being disclosed that you consider necessary for their protection, you should explore their reasons for this. It may be appropriate to encourage the patient to consent to the disclosure and to warn them of the risks of refusing to consent. It was noted that the Nearest Relative’s details appeared not to have been completed on the MH 1. Again, this is a matter that has been brought to the attention of those responsible for the AMHP. ”

    Source location

    Callum James Hargreaves · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

  2. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Sally Poynton · 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

    Sally Poynton, aged 44, was fatally stabbed by her son on 22 June 2021. The report raised concerns about failures in mental-health assessment and follow-up, including inadequate discharge information, difficulties obtaining reassessment, referral handling, communication with family, and discharge without clinical consideration despite signs of deteriorating mental health.

    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 advise Nearest Relatives of statutory rights to request MHA assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “a) In-patient care at Longreach Hospital Approximately one year before Sally’s homicide, ████████ had been detained under s2 of the MHA and spent 10 days at Longreach. At the time, there had been noted changes in his behaviour to include a belief that he could live without food for 10 years (Breatharianism), disinhibited behaviour to include sunbathing naked on a driveway (believing he received energy from the sun) and a stated belief that others could hear his thoughts – thought broadcasting – a potential symptom of schizophrenia. ████████ was selectively mute, fasting and drinking only distilled water. He was assessed on at least three occasions by a consultant psychiatrist, was reviewed by multiple junior medical doctors, seen by mental health nurses and reviewed by the Early Intervention in Psychosis Team. No one saw any evidence of psychosis and it was felt there were no longer grounds in law to detain him. He was discharged without a diagnosis or a plan for future care. At inquest, ████████████ accepted the medical team never completely got to the bottom of the reason for his presentation. His Responsible Clinician, ████████████, referred to a ‘quandary’ in identifying how much of ████████ presentation was due to culture or lifestyle and how much was due to his morbid condition. This uncertainty was not reflected in the discharge summary which described ████████ as a ‘model patient.’ One of the most striking features of the evidence was the difficulty Sally then encountered in having ████████ re-assessed. Indeed, in the year that followed, despite multiple attempts, ████████ was not seen again by a doctor from the mental health team. It is noteworthy that ████████ did not believe himself to be unwell, there appears to have been an assumption he had capacity and as he did not consent to treatment, that appears to have become an insurmountable barrier to further care. I felt there were a number of points of learning: i) An inaccurate or incomplete discharge summary that did not reflect the element of uncertainty in diagnosis both doctors outlined at inquest; ii) A failure to discuss with Sally or the maternal side of ████████ family how he presented, notwithstanding a clear direction following a first ward round to ‘collaborate’ with the family. This seems particularly relevant given Jacob’s mutism which made obtaining a history difficult. It may be of note that there was a difficult family dynamic with an acrimonious separation of ████████ parents. ████████ father was spoken to and there was a reference in the evidence that a member of the in-patient team felt it was Sally’s mental health that needed consideration. It was not explored at inquest whether one side of the family’s views had been accepted at the expense of the other’s. iii) The absence of a plan detailing the route back for ████████ to be seen again if the reason for his bizarre presentation was due to an emerging illness (that worsened) rather than alternative lifestyle choices; iv) A failure to advise Sally, as Nearest Relative, of her statutory right to request ████████ assessment under the MHA. This omission has been noted previously in other PSIF/SIRs. You may wish to reflect whether information in this regard can be included on a website or similar if it is not already and whether there is a need for training of staff in this regard. v) A delay of five months in putting into the RiO records a detailed timeline provided by Sally while ████████ was an in-patient. ████████ accepted that had he seen it at the time, he would have had further questions for Jacob. vi) A lack of understanding or professional curiosity about ████████ drug-taking and the extent to which, if at all, this contributed to ████████ presentation. It was accepted by ████████ that he had been misled by ████████ who had minimised his history in this regard where there was substantial evidence of illicit drug use, including psychotropics. ”

    Source location

    Sally Poynton · 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

    The Integrated Care Board is expected to respond to concerns about the specific care provided.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I would expect the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Integrated Care Board to respond in detail to the concerns you have raised about the specifics of the care that Sally’s son received.”

    Source location

    2024-0267 Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 May 2024

    Open published response

  3. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Nicolas Gerasimidis · 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

    Nicolas Gerasimidis had a history of mental illness manifesting as OCD and anxiety, which deteriorated despite referrals and treatment arrangements. He was found hanged at his home address on 3 June 2023, and the inquest recorded a conclusion of suicide. Concerns included community mental health referrals being rejected, shortages of care coordinators and consultants, a one-year waiting list for psychological treatment, lack of hospital bed availability, and shortcomings in information provided to his family.

    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 inform nearest relatives of their Mental Health Act right to request an AMHP case review

    Wider context from the report

    “The Trust’s Patient Safety Review identified the following concerns: - When Mr Gerasimidis was referred by his GP to the community mental health team, he was screened out, in part, due to challenging staffing issues; - No care coordinator was appointed owing to a shortage of staff; - The Trust had and continues to have vacancies at consultant level; - The family was wrongly advised the Trust was not commissioned to treat OCD; - The family was not informed of a nearest relative’s right under the Mental Health Act to request a case review by an AMHP; - Psychological treatment in the form of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with Exposure Response Prevention had a waiting list of one year; - In May 2023, when it was felt Mr Gerasimidis required an informal admission into hospital, no beds were available. The difficulties with staff recruitment and bed availability are long term problems in the Cornwall coroner area. The Patient Safety Review suggests Cornwall has fewer beds for its population than other areas. It is the persistent or recurring nature of these concerns that leads me to believe action should be taken. ”

    Source location

    Nicolas Gerasimidis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  4. Manchester City

    AI-generated summary

    Girmaye Guyo Liban · 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

    Girmaye Guyo Liban had a long history of mental health illness and substance abuse, was discharged from detention under the Mental Health Act 1983, remained unwell in the community, went missing on 10 November 2020, and his body was found in a reservoir on 26 November 2020. The concern was that the Nearest Relative Power could enable discharge despite a patient continuing to meet the criteria for detention, without a thorough procedure or legal test for clinicians to apply.

    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 thorough procedure or legal test for assessing nearest relative discharge applications

    Wider context from the report

    “The Nearest Relative Power may (as it did in this case) present an opportunity for a patient and/or their Nearest Relative to apply to the Responsible Clinician for discharge in circumstances when the patient remains liable for their continued detention. There does not appear to be a thorough procedure or legal test for clinicians to apply, and thus there is a risk that Responsible Clinicians may be faced with circumstances whereby a patient will be discharged from hospital despite them continuing to meet the criteria for detention. ”

    Source location

    Girmaye Guyo Liban · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026