Recurring concern

Unreliable clinical handover processes

First to latest report 27 Nov 2013 — 10 Jun 2026

Reports that mention this concern
67
Times this concern has been raised
74
Stated actions linked to this concern
107

What this concern includes

Includes failures of clinical handovers between healthcare staff, teams, wards or hospitals where the handover process is intended to transfer patient information, risks, concerns, responsibilities or required actions for safe ongoing care, including inadequate content, unclear standards, omission of key information, ineffective challenge and poor risk prioritisation.

What is not included
  • Excludes non-clinical handovers, such as fire-and-rescue incident-role handovers or transport crew drop-off and pick-up handovers.
  • Excludes failures limited to retaining, reviewing or acting on information after an otherwise adequate clinical handover, unless the handover process itself is also deficient.
  • Excludes generic communication, staffing, training or documentation deficiencies not directly tied to a clinical handover.
  • Excludes the narrower shift-handover process where the assertion is confined to shift-change handover and does not support the wider clinical-handover condition.
  • Excludes failures of a separately named pathway or system where that pathway provides the more specific supported parent boundary.

Reports and published responses 67 reports

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

  1. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    Tom Cribley · 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

    Tom Cribley attended Aintree hospital on 18 February 2017 with vomiting, diarrhoea and a rash, and was later diagnosed with meningococcal sepsis. The report identifies concerns including failures to document and escalate the rash and deteriorating observations, inadequate handovers and reassessment, delayed recognition of abnormal blood results, and delayed antibiotic treatment. Tom did not recover and died on 20 February 2017.

    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 hand over clinical concerns to relevant clinical staff

    Wider context from the report

    “A RCA revealed a number of failings by the Trust including in respect of some matters that had been previously raised by the Care Quality Commission and required action. The failings identified by the Trust and those found by the Jury included; inter alia failing to document important clinical findings for example the failure to document the rash that Tom presented with when he arrived at AED which was not recorded at triage. The failure to escalate the NEWS (National Modified Early Warning Score) in a timely manner to medical staff and to repeat observations hourly in accordance with the NEWS policy. The failure to complete a full “PIT STOP” review, the failure to review the initial diagnosis of gastroenteritis when Tom’s condition continued to deteriorate, the failure of clinical staff to handover clinical concerns to each other and to medical staff including face to face handovers, the failure to escalate monitoring and management appropriately in particular following receipt of the first set of grossly abnormal blood results, the failure to administer antibiotic therapy until 23.00 hrs this even when Tom’s condition continued to deteriorate and the rash that he presented with began to spread and appeared to change in both colour, size and location during which time Tom was becoming increasingly unwell, he had been a fit and well 28 year old prior to his attendance in AED. There was also an admitted failure to escalate appropriately and to convey the magnitude and severity of Tom’s condition and deterioration to the Critical Care Team, who described him as being “in extremis” when the Critical care doctor arrived shortly after 23.00hrs. The care and treatment from 2300hrs onwards on 18/02/2017 was regarded as wholly appropriate but sadly Tom did not recover and he died on 20/02/2017. Aintree University Hospital have put an action plan in place to address the failings identified within the RCA however such is the concern of the Coroner pertaining to the training needs of clinical staff (doctors and nurses) in respect of the identification and treatment of sepsis and meningococcal sepsis in particular that the Coroner requires a report and action plan which clearly identifies a systematic, consistent and comprehensive ongoing training programme which identifies not only the training plan that will be implemented across the Trust but also how the training plans implementation will be monitored in respect of consistency of approach, compliance and effectiveness. The Trust has produced a number of action plans on previous occasions following Care Quality Commission Reviews, however, some of the failings identified in the issues touching the death of Tom Cribley have also been identified on previous occasions. Robust monitoring and ownership of the training programme, implementation and review is required from the very top of the organisation up to and including the Trust Board. This leadership and ownership from the top will be fundamental to the achievement of meaningful and sustained improvements in the provision of education and training in this most challenging clinical area. ”

    Source location

    Tom Cribley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

  2. Wiltshire and Swindon

    AI-generated summary

    Terence Andrew Bennett · 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

    Terence Andrew Bennett, who had schizo-affective disorder and was severely mentally ill, suicidal and threatening harm to his mother, died by suicide after self-inflicting deep wounds to his neck and wrists on 26 October 2016. The inquest found that his death was contributed to by neglect. Concerns included inadequate care and risk-management plans, failures in record use and handover, insufficient family and multidisciplinary involvement, reliance on unqualified staff, and deficiencies in supervision, training and consultant working arrangements.

    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 proper handover between healthcare professionals when care personnel change

    Wider context from the report

    “8. When there was a change in personnel responsible for the care of the patient, there appeared to be a lack of a proper handover between the healthcare professionals. ”

    Source location

    Terence Andrew Bennett · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  3. Southampton and New Forest

    AI-generated summary

    Owen Richard Widlake · 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

    Owen Widlake was born full term and healthy but aspirated meconium and developed worsening respiratory failure. He died at Southampton General Hospital on 31 May 2016 after late diagnosis of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn and an acute intraventricular haemorrhage. Concerns included staffing and medical cover, recognition and escalation of respiratory distress, observation records, staff training, transfer arrangements, and handovers.

    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 defined medical and nursing handover system and required information

    Wider context from the report

    “(1a) Staffing levels over the weekend and bank holiday, in particular the use of ANNP and SANNP trained staff to replace junior and registrar level doctors on duty covering NICU. (1b) The need for a dedicated junior level doctor or registrar to be on duty 24 hours covering NICU, and not a limited 3 / 4 hour shift. (1c) The need to clarify as to the role an ANNP or SANNP has, whether in a nursing capacity or medical capacity, and how they are perceived by other staff. 2) The observations for children in transition or admitted to NICU are not recorded seamlessly nor are easily viewable whether on a chart or graph. 3) The nursing staff do not appear able to escalate concerns either i) due to lack of clear care plans and escalation markers ii) poor training particularly the SANNP and ANNP in the recognition of respiratory distress and PPHN ii) a lack of empowerment indicating a lack of leadership. 4) The on going training undertaken of nursing staff in relation to PPHN and respiratory distress has been the responsibility of SANNP ████████ and a consultant, with no indication that they have undertaken training themselves. 5) Concern as to staff deciding whether a child in respiratory distress should be NBM or not and what is the guidance on this. 6) The Transfer policy for this Trust and what would be guidance or indicators as to the seeking of tertiary level assistance and transfer, especially when a crisis point may be reached past 10pm. 7) What is the current system in place for handovers between medical staff and nursing staff, whether written or verbal, and what information must be included as part of that handover. ”

    Source location

    Owen Richard Widlake · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

  4. South Wales Central

    AI-generated summary

    Hedley Greenland · 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

    Hedley Greenland, who was residing in a nursing home and had prostate cancer requiring permanent catheterisation, became acutely unwell on 17 December 2016 and died in hospital on 20 December 2016. The inquest concluded that he died from the effects of a urine infection in circumstances where fluid input and catheter output were not adequately monitored for over nine hours. Concerns included the absence of fluid balance monitoring and written handover, inadequate catheter-care training and knowledge, and the absence of evidence that the Catheter Care Bundle was being used.

    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 written handover to incoming nursing teams

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) A fluid balance chart should have been used by nursing staff to monitor fluid intake and urine output. There was no evidence that one had been thus rendering it impossible to measure urine output which might have indicated a blockage and/or infection. It was apparent during the course of the evidence that the nurse in charge of Mr Greenland's care did not consider actively monitoring his urine output, neither did she consider flushing the catheter. There was no written handover, as the evidence showed is normally the practice, to the incoming nursing team the following morning. There was no clear evidence that the lack of urine output had been noted by the night shift with a view to escalating his care. The evidence revealed that there was no urine output for at least 9 hours but probably substantially more than that. ”

    Source location

    Hedley Greenland · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  5. Coventry

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Robert Dymond · 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 Robert Dymond underwent elective left knee replacement surgery on 9 March 2017 and suffered a massive thromboembolic event the following morning, dying on 11 March 2017. Concerns included the management and follow-up of suspected deep vein thrombosis, the apparent failure to communicate the November 2016 DVT investigations and treatment to the surgical and anaesthetic teams, and their omission from the second pre-operative 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

    Failure to make the operating Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Anaesthetist aware of relevant DVT investigations and treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Neither the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon nor the Anaesthetist performing the operation on 9 March 2017 had been made aware of the DVT investigations/treatment in November 2016; ”

    Source location

    Mr Robert Dymond · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The available investigations did not identify DVT, so it would not have affected pre-operative assessment or the operating team’s decisions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The haematologists do consider it unlikely that the patient did have a proximal DVT as he was untreated and would not appear to have had any further problems up until his surgery 4 months later. As no DVT was identified by the investigations it would not have been relevant to the pre-operative assessment and would not have been relevant to the operating team.”

    Source location

    2017-0333-Response-by-University-Hospitals-Coventry-and-Warwickshire-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 December 2017

    Open published response

  6. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    James David Allbones · 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 David Allbones, aged five, died from sepsis caused by Influenza B virus infection at Bassetlaw Hospital on 2 March 2016, after being admitted within 12 hours and having been unwell with cough and breathlessness. The report identified concerns that the seriousness of his condition and red-flag signs of sepsis were not recognised, sepsis fluid management was not given, Consultant management and review were limited, and he was not considered early for transfer to a hospital providing Paediatric Intensive Care. Further concerns included paediatric staffing, handover arrangements, and communication about deteriorating children.

    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 face-to-face medical handover protocol

    Wider context from the report

    “that there is still no protocol for face to face medical handover ”

    Source location

    James David Allbones · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

  7. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Constance Connolly · 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

    Constance Connolly died at home on 8 March 2016 from disseminated Nocardia infection, with severe chronic obstructive airways disease also recorded. She declined hospital admission, and planned outpatient investigations were not completed. The report identified concerns about inadequate follow-up, failures in handover and communication, incomplete discharge information, and the failure to arrange a replacement scan appointment, describing these as a system failure in urgent follow-up after discharge from A&E.

    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 hand over urgent investigation needs to the responsible doctor

    Wider context from the report

    “There are four matters in the circumstances which cause concern 1. The doctor who ordered the scan did not conduct any follow up to see that it had been performed. The consultant chest physician said that handover of care was dangerous time and that it was his duty to do so. 2. The referring doctor notified the GSTT community palliative care team of the need to organize a MRI scan, on the understanding that the team was taking over care. The consultant in the palliative care team explained that their role was to advise the doctor responsible for care, which was at the time, the general practitioner. The referring doctor did not inform the general practitioner. 3. The discharge note to the GP from the A&E indicated a diagnosis of stroke (presumed before CT scan), did not mention the CT finding of cerebral lesions that may be metastases, nor the need for EMI scan and further investigation to conform diagnosis, nor the booking of a MRI scan 4. A member of the palliative care team rang the A&E department and was told that the scan appointment was the next day (17th). When the patient and her mother attended the next day, she was told that there was no appointment. Evidence was heard that the booking, which was on the basis of being an in-patient, is automatically cancelled if the patient becomes an out-patient and the clinical referral cannot be transferred to an outpatient appointment. A new referral and form needed to be completed. So the patient went home, and no further appointment was made. The above evidence suggests a system failure in handover of patients who leave A&E with the need for urgent follow up. ”

    Source location

    Constance Connolly · 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

    Send formal discharge notifications to GPs after self-discharge, including relevant tests, assessments and follow-up arrangements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Steps have been taken to ensure that regardless of patients self-discharging, a formal Discharge Notification is always sent to a patient’s GP, setting out all relevant tests/assessments performed and any follow-up arrangements if applicable. Responsibility sits with the admitting Consultant and Ward Managers, and this will be included in the junior doctors’ induction information package.”

    Source location

    2017-0201-Response-by-Kings-College-Hospital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 28 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

    Establish Consultant-led virtual reviews of patients self-discharged during the take period to confirm investigations and follow-up are arranged.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Finally, as mentioned above under Matter 1, the Trust is committed to ensuring the post-take Consultant undertakes a “virtual ward round” of any patient who has self-discharged during the take period, and reassures themselves they have received appropriate follow-up by way of signposting, appointments or otherwise.”

    Source location

    2017-0201-Response-by-Kings-College-Hospital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 28 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

    Develop a Trust-wide best-practice guide for discharge notifications and clinic letters, including self-discharge requirements, with local CCG collaboration.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• The Trust is developing a Trust-wide best practice guide on Discharge Notification and clinic letter writing for clinical staff, in collaboration with the local CCGs. This will include clarification that a discharge notification is required for all patients who self-discharge.”

    Source location

    2017-0201-Response-by-Kings-College-Hospital
    Page 4 · response
    Published 28 July 2017

    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 concerns raised did not cause or contribute to the death, and the inquest found no failures of care contributed to it.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a preliminary point, we note that none of the concerns raised in the Report caused or contributed to Mrs Connolly’s death in light of the Conclusion reached at the Inquest hearing on 24 May 2017, namely “Natural causes contributed to by unintended consequences of necessary medical treatment”. The Report in particular states that no failures of care contributed to Mrs Connolly’s death.”

    Source location

    2017-0201-Response-by-Kings-College-Hospital
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 July 2017

    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 of proposed investigations is the responsibility of the team that ordered them, with the ordering team responsible for ensuring follow-up.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust agrees follow-up of patients in terms of proposed investigations is the responsibility of the team who has ordered the investigation(s). An outpatient MRI scan appointment was made, but this should have been communicated more clearly to the GP. The “virtual review”, as described below under Matter 2, should facilitate clearer communication to health care colleagues, patients and families.”

    Source location

    2017-0201-Response-by-Kings-College-Hospital
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 July 2017

    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

    After self-discharge, ongoing care was assessed as transferring to the GSTT Palliative Care team, although MRI management would not ordinarily be its responsibility.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The referring doctor notified the GSTT Community Palliative Care team of the need to organise a MRI scan, on the understanding that the team was taking over care. The Consultant in the Palliative Care team explained that their role was to advise the doctor responsible for care, which was at the time, the General Practitioner.”

    Source location

    2017-0201-Response-by-Kings-College-Hospital
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 July 2017

    Open published response

  8. Avon

    AI-generated summary

    Rayan AHMED · 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

    Rayan Ahmed, a premature baby cared for in a special care unit, collapsed on 6 July 2016 after his deteriorating condition went unrecognised for 1 hour and 5 minutes. He suffered an unsurvivable catastrophic brain injury and died on 9 July 2016. The principal concern was that nurses covering breaks cared for babies they knew nothing about, with inadequate handover arrangements identified as an issue.

    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 handover information about babies covered by nurses during breaks

    Wider context from the report

    “I was concerned to note during the evidence that nurses in the special care unit are left caring for babies that they know nothing about when covering a break. I would therefore ask that this matter is reviewed and that there is consideration given to the handover at the start of the shifts to include not only the babies that the nurse is directly caring for but also to include the others that the nurse may have to take responsibility for during her shift when her colleague is say taking a break, alternatively that there is a handover at the break. ”

    Source location

    Rayan AHMED · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  9. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    Linsay Bushell · 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

    Linsay Bushell, aged 37, died on 13 October 2014 after being found having self-ligatured under her bed while detained in a psychiatric ward; the medical cause was asphyxia due to compression of the neck due to ligature strangulation. The report identified concerns including inadequate access to psychological therapies, limited understanding and documentation of self-harm, poor handover and observation records, fragmented care, delays in finding suitable placement, and insufficient staff training and support.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Poor quality and insufficient standardisation of handover documentation

    Wider context from the report

    “The Court heard evidence that 40% to 50% of mentally disordered female patients suffered from EUPD rather than mental illness and yet there was no provision or priority for therapeutic psychological services to be commissioned in the NHS England Area. The Jury found: Para 3 1. Linsay Bushell was certified as having died on the evening of 13th October, 2014. at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital. 2. Linsay Bushell came by the fatal event that caused her death at 20.20 at room 2 on the Brunswick Ward at the Broad Oak Unit on 13th October 2014. 3. The medical cause of Linsay's death was Asphyxia due to Compression of the Neck due to Ligature Strangulation. 4. Linsay put herself in the position in which she was found however her intention was unclear. 5. At the time of her death and for most of her adult life, Linsay had suffered from a form of mental disorder namely an unstable borderline personality disorder. 6. The real and imminent risk of self-harm or suicide was recognised during Linsay's care at the Broad Oak Unit in the time leading up to her death. 7. The risk was managed adequately and effectively during Linsay's period as an in-patient. 8. The jury accept the admissions of Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust and adopt the findings that the Trust has made. a. In the Trust Position Statement Mersey Care considers the death of any service user with the utmost seriousness and care. As an organisation it is committed to providing a high standard of care to service users generally. If, in connection with any patient under its care, mistakes have been made whether in the form of individual errors or as a result of system or structural defects, then the Mersey Care Trust Board is committed to uncovering those errors, correcting them and learning lessons from them. 2. Following the death of Linsay Bushell on 13th October 2014, Mersey Care instigated an investigation into her death, including the wider circumstances of her death, to find out whether there were shortcomings in the care provided to Linsay and, if so, devise ways of improving practice. That investigation was an internal review and root cause analysis by a multi-disciplinary panel which included an external medical reviewer. Its Terms of Reference were agreed by the Trust Board and were deliberately wide so as to pick up deficits in care or indeed examples of good practice throughout Linsay's involvement with the Trust and so enable as deep a learning exercise as possible in what was acknowledged to be a complex clinical picture. The review panel considered relevant documents and interviewed members of staff and the investigator's report was provided to Mersey Care Trust Board in December 2015. 3. Following the internal investigation, the Trust Board instructed ████████ the Chief Operating Officer of the Local Services Division to consider the report of the internal investigation and undertake her own review and appraisal of the circumstances of the death. She was also instructed to devise a workable and practical strategy to address the issues which were raised by the internal review and her own consideration of the material. 4. The Trust is committed to transparency and accountability. The purpose of this Position Statement is to advise the Court and Linsay's family of the Trust's response to the work which has been undertaken internally by the Trust and of the approach which will be taken to the forthcoming inquest into Linsay's death. It is hoped that, by doing so, the Court's case management task in respect of the forthcoming inquest will be facilitated; also importantly that Linsay's family will be reassured by their understanding that an approach which is consistent with the conclusions of the internal review of the death is to be adopted at the inquest. 5. The conclusions of the internal review include some examples of good or notable practice and many areas where the service or care provided to Linsay fell short of the desired standards. Following concerns raised by a member of staff, the Review Team considered the contents, including the conclusions, of the internal review undertaken. Having done so, the Review Team adheres to the conclusions which were expressed in the report. The Trust Board fully acknowledges that mistakes had been made in Linsay's care when she was a resident on Broad Oak Unit and that these mistakes afforded Linsay the opportunity to ligature on 13th October 2014. The Trust accepts responsibility for Linsay's death. Whilst understanding that no apology will fully assuage the feelings of Linsay's family and those who were close to her, the Trust nonetheless offers that apology. It is made with sincerity. 6. The review panel considered that Linsay's psychiatric condition was complex. Her condition fluctuated in response to stressors such as bereavement and illicit drug use. However, a main theme to emerge from the internal review panel report was the failure of the Trust to provide Linsay with a service that was psychologically driven at all levels of care. The Trust accepts this criticism. It is accepted that psychology interventions were not available on a consistent basis throughout Linsay's residence on the Unit and that ward staff were inadequately supported in their provision of such care and treatment. a. Whilst an attempt to understand the motivation for self-harming behaviour is apparent from the Acute Care Plans (which were not available to the panel) the Trust accepts that this was inadequate. The Trust also accepts that the record keeping and standard of documentation was inadequate so that a more detailed picture of Linsay's self-harming behaviour and its triggers was not available. As a result, staff were hampered in considering the best ways of limiting and controlling Linsay's self-harming behaviour. b. Whilst understanding that patients suffering from Personality Disorders may present a complex management problem, a focused and co-ordinated approach to finding the most appropriate establishment to meet Linsay's needs was not adopted. It was recognised that Brunswick Ward did not meet Linsay's short or long-term needs. Although efforts were made by the Care Co-ordinator to locate the most appropriate placement for Linsay, funding was not immediately available. This had the effect of causing Linsay distress and disappointment. The Trust accepts this criticism. c. Staff were not sufficiently trained and supported in their understanding of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorders and the high suicide rate associated with this condition particularly during long term hospital stays. Again, the Trust accepts this criticism. 7. Further themes to emerge from the internal review included: the lack of implementing a co-ordinated approach to checking patients after handover; that handover documentation was scant; that documentation of observation levels was insufficiently clear; that there were limited interventions regarding substance misuse and its effect on Linsay's self-harming behaviour and that ward management needed greater support. All of these observations and criticisms are accepted by the Trust. 8. ████████ has been tasked with reviewing Linsay's care during her residence on Brunswick Ward and reviewing the conclusions of the internal report. She is involved in the wider Trust initiatives which include reducing the risk of suicide by patients and enhancing the understanding and treatment of those patients who suffer from Personality Disorders. She has set out the steps which have been taken in her statement. The key points are as follows: a. Given the wide understanding that those suffering from Personality Disorders are best managed in the community, a Personality Disorder Hub has been established in the community. This is now led by ████████ a Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy, and is intended to co-ordinate and manage the care of patients with Personality Disorders within the community. The objective is that, where possible, admissions to hospital are kept short, or avoided altogether. This involves close and collaborative working by all of those involved in the patient's care. This is facilitated by the PD Hub. b. Case managers have been recruited and assigned to service users who attend the emergency services regularly (as a consequence of self-harming behaviour). These case managers work closely with the PD Hub and focus care on the individual. The care given is psychologically based. It is targeted at helping the patient to devise strategies to limit self-harming behaviour. c. Borderline Personality Disorder Guidelines have been devised which stipulate that meetings of professionals should take place in complex cases and a specific Extended Care Plan should anticipate and considers care both in the community and in inpatient units. The objective is to provide a coherent and co-ordinated plan of care which is tailored to the particular needs and challenges posed by the particular patient. d. Nursing staff have received training in Personality Disorders. Complex Case discussions take place on all wards. This is intended to enable multi-disciplinary team discussion between professionals in particularly challenging cases. e. A daily Bed Management system has been introduced which, amongst other objectives, is intended to ensure that patients with Personality Disorders are discharged back into the community with minimum delay and with an appropriate support package. 9. Although ████████ describes in her statement the various responses which have been made by the Trust to improve the management of patients with Personality Disorders, the individual elements are intended to work as only part of an integrated model. The strength of the structure lies in its overarching objective of transforming the approach generally to meeting the needs of those with Personality Disorders, recognised as presenting a particular set of challenges to any healthcare organisation. 10. ████████ also addressed in her statement the further steps which have been taken to support staff in complying with Trust policies, including the Care Programme Approach, observation levels, suicide prevention and training, record keeping and shift handover documentation. Regular audits for compliance and ongoing support is undertaken. There has been a review of leadership roles within the Unit generally including Brunswick Ward and support and guidance for those occupying a leadership role is regularly provided. 11. As ████████ has stated, although much has changed since Linsay's death, there is no room for complacency. She and others within the Trust will continue their work and undertake a regular evaluation of service levels. 12. It is hoped that Linsay's family are encouraged in their understanding that the Trust have taken Linsay's death very seriously indeed. Lessons have been learned. Her death has been a catalyst for change for the better. b. In the implementation of Lessons learnt the Trust further accepts 1. The review team identified this as "a very complex case" and noted that "it is unclear whether or not LB harmed herself with a view to achieving death or in an effort to gain help from staff which had happened on many occasions before during her in-patient stay". a. The review team reached a number of critical conclusions relating to the care which Linsay received during the course of her involvement with the Trust. The principal conclusions were as follows:- b. Limited understanding and analysis of self-harming behaviour. The review team noted that Linsay was described as undertaking self-harming behaviour on many occasions and that her 'ligaturing' was used in the notes in a generic sense with no specific details given on many occasions. The review team concluded that despite repeated attempts at self-harm with the same behaviour, insufficient effort was made to look at this particular risk. They also concluded that the notes did not pick up exploration of the reasons behind many self-harm attempts. Instead, they thought it was generally assumed that Linsay's self-harming behaviour was as a result of either drugs or some form of stress or 'loss' and that a more detailed exploration of her episodes of self-harm might have proved useful in terms of developing preventative strategies. Linsay did not have a "safety plan" as this was not Trust policy at the time. However, she did have a Care Plan. c. Failure to implement a co-ordinated approach towards checking the safety of patients following handover. Staff told the reviewers there was no co-ordinated approach to allocating tasks on the night in question. On that night there was no formal "walk around" undertaken by a qualified member of staff as required by policy. The review team concluded that it was essential that generic safety systems such as the handover check are implemented very robustly as they are the alternative to individual observations being used which in this case were thought to have a negative effect on Linsay. d. Poor quality of handover information. The handover notes were frequently scant in content. There was no standard template as to what should be included in handover. The review team was unclear how the nursing handover was quality controlled. On just one occasion it was mentioned in handover that Linsay had ligatured during the day but despite the frequency of this behaviour the handover notes did not capture this at all. e. Confusion about observation levels. There were occasions when it was unclear what level of observation Linsay was on. On the day of the incident staff told the reviewers they were informed that Linsay had been on leave with a member of staff and that it had gone very well, that she was settled and had just had a take-away meal. There was no discussion as regards any risk that Linsay may have been at, taking into account previous behaviour after leave. Recording of changes in observation levels were frequently unclear. f. No process to monitor the completion of CPA documentation. The review team could not identify the processes that were in place to ensure that all patients had an up to date risk management plan and care plan hence they found that the plans in place for Linsay were not current although Linsay did in fact have a current care plan. g. Limited content and poor quality of documentation. Documentation of observation levels was not as clear as it should have been and given her very high risk it was important to document any observation changes and the reasoning behind this. This might help build up a picture of the best way of mitigating any potential risk from any form of self-harm, particularly with that associated with ligaturing. It would also help staff adopt a more 'psychological' approach to care rather than using physical intervention like high observation levels or PRN medication if 'agitated', the latter of which was similar in a way to her 'substance misuse. The review team noted that staff did spend a lot of time talking to Linsay but the notes did not capture any questioning as to why she had tried to self-harm at a particular time. h. Limited interventions regarding substance misuse as an inpatient. Linsay's highest risk of suicide seemed to be in the aftermath of substance misuse. Whilst this was commented on, specialist measures to try and mitigate it were not put in place. The addiction case worker did not attend multi-disciplinary team meetings whilst on the ward, though they did see Linsay whilst she was an inpatient in Childwall Brook Nursing Home. The reviewers noted that the care appeared to be fragmented in that different parts of the services did not plan or deliver the care that was needed together. i. Poor coordination of referral to a specialist provider. The team pursued a variety of specialist placements in an attempt to meet Linsay's care needs going forwards. One of them, Cambrian Care, undertook an assessment and accepted Linsay as they felt that they had the ability to provide her with the appropriate care required. When the funding was requested it was rejected by the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). It was at this time that the funding of Out of Area Placements was being changed with the Trust being given the delegated responsibility for allocating resources on behalf of the CCG. Consequently Linsay's future needs were re-assessed and internal placements were considered in the Trust's own services. The review was completed a short time before Linsay's death, and recommended that an Out of Area specialist placement should be supported. The review team felt that the whole process of having Linsay assessed externally and then the process being stopped would have raised her expectations inappropriately. The significant delay in undertaking a review process was felt by the review team to have kept Linsay in an area that was recognised as not being able to meet all her short and long term needs. j. Ward Management. Brunswick ward was a very busy admission ward. The Ward Manager did not have a background in leading such a ward nor did the Modern Matron who came from a community background. This meant that senior challenge and specific clinical guidance for staff was not available. During interviews it was suggested that there had been some friction between nurse management on the ward that may have contributed to a background of poor team working. The review team advised that it was important staff were led by experienced managers who understand both the management processes and the clinical area they are responsible for. k. Transfer of Patients from one organisation to another. The review team identified and amongst staff that patients could not be transferred from one organisation to another until they were "stable". This was impracticable for cases like Linsay's as she was rarely, if ever, stable. She lived in an area inaccessible to her treating psychiatry service when she lived in Kensington whilst remaining under 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust's care. The review team concluded that regular engagement with local Mersey Care services might have avoided Linsay's final admission. l. Lack of implementing a clear care pathway. Linsay had a diagnosis of Emotional Unstable Personality Disorder which is associated with a high suicide rate long-term. This is particularly increased during extended in-patient stays. Staff stated during interview that they had not had training related to self-harming behaviour or in the care of people with an Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. The reviewers could not identify a clear pathway that was being followed to care for Linsay which took into account her complex needs. Whilst staff appeared to have worked hard at building a relationship up with Linsay the review team concluded that it was generally at a superficial level. The review team noted that the Trust had a Borderline Personality Disorder strategy and guidance but could not find that it was implemented or understood by staff. The review team recognised the national view is that admissions for people with a Borderline Personality Disorder are often counterproductive to improving the mental state of a patient and at worst contribute to difficulties and worsening of the condition. How and when clinicians feel able to take managed and considered “positive” risks is important. How these issues are factored into an extended care plan and the support that clinicians can receive on these cases needs to be clear and thought through by the Trust. The review team are aware that this work was on going within the organisation. m. Lack of specialist psychological work/guidance to staff. The review team found that specialist interventions were not available on a consistent basis. The review team found that there was inconsistent availability of psychology on the ward environment during the last period of Linsay's admission. The review team were told that Linsay was not amenable to psychological interventions and had tried different modalities in the past. It was a concern that whilst Linsay may not have wanted or been able to avail herself of therapy the overall strategy of care should have been directed and guided from a more psycho-therapeutic perspective. 2. The review team could not identify one specific root cause but felt that the contributory factors interacted together to create a situation whereby Linsay remained distressed on the ward, with limited up take of psychological therapy to help reduce the distress seemingly enhanced by her recent losses. The staff clearly tried hard to work with her but with limited knowledge. There was a sense of fragmented care in that specialist services such as those offered by the addiction team were not engaged in the ward discussions despite Linsay engaging with them during her short stay at Childwall Brook Nursing Home. The period to identify a suitable placement for Linsay seemed overly protracted and seemed to focus thoughts on an external answer to the escalating situation. Discontinuity of Care/Management of Care 3. The Trust has done a lot of work looking at how to develop the service it offers to service users with a diagnosis of personality disorder. It has developed Guidelines for the management of these individuals and established a Personality Disorder Hub (PD Hub) headed by ████████ a Consultant Psychologist, in November 2014. These Guidelines are produced at pages 311 - 355 of the Inquest Bundle B. 4. The Trust's Borderline Personality Disorder Guidelines advise that in complex cases there should be a meeting of professionals followed by the development of a specific Extended Care Plan (ECP). The ECP starts with a formulation/summary of the history and care provided, and then describes the type of care that should be provided in different settings including inpatient units. 5. Evidence suggests that prolonged or repeated hospital admissions are not helpful for service users with a diagnosis of personality disorder. The PD Hub aims to keep admissions to hospital as short as possible and to avoid them altogether where appropriate. The Trust has recruited individual psychologists and nurses trained and qualified in managing patients with a personality disorder diagnosis to work as case managers for this group of service users. They are responsible for managing the care of the most complex service users regardless of where the service user goes and thus are able to provide continuity of care and work with other care teams to provide consistency of approach. 6. The team initially identified 40 service users who attended A&E on a regular basis and allocated these to the 4 case managers then in post so that each case manager was responsible for 10 service users. Given the success of this work more case managers have been recruited so that the most complex service users who have increased need now have a specialist case manager. 7. The case managers are focussed care for the individual. The approach to care is psychologically based and will include the case manager working with the service user to look at their risk taking and what triggers it. They will then work with the service user to develop strategies to enable the service user to cope with these triggers. Triggers may include memories of past abuse. 8. The Trust is working towards extending the recently introduced day service available for people with personality disorder as part of our evidenced based PD pathway. 9. The aim is to help the service user to manage their condition differently and thus avoid hospital admission if possible. Risk Assessment/Care Planning 10. Linsay's mental state, level of distress, reported symptomology and self-harming or suicidal behaviour fluctuated quite markedly during her admission. I accept that there was an unstructured approach to reviewing and planning interventions with Linsay which meant there was no collaboratively developed understanding of her risk. 11. Staff are expected to reassess the risks following each ligature incident and episode of self-harm and document the fact that an assessment had taken place and the conclusions reached. Such reviews ought to have included a detailed exploration of Linsay's mental state, her thoughts and feelings and the level of observation she required. ”

    Source location

    Linsay Bushell · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  10. Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Leslie Isaac LERNER · 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

    Leslie Isaac Lerner died on 3 June 2016 after treatment for a fractured shoulder, including application of an incorrect sling that caused a deep pressure sore and additional pain. The report identified concerns about inadequate senior review, analgesia, communication, handover, continuity of care, recognition of pneumonia and deterioration, and delay in initiating end-of-life care.

    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 proper handover during ward transfer

    Wider context from the report

    “16th May 2016 (1) Having been admitted to a renal ward, because of lack of beds elsewhere, a member of the medical staff had a telephone discussion with a member of the Orthopaedic Team and a collar and cuff sling was recommended. This information was not passed onto the Nursing Staff, not properly documented nor was the Patient actually seen by a member of Orthopaedic Team. He should have been seen and a note should have been made. (2) He then was moved to another ward, again not an Orthopaedic Ward, where any chance of correct hand over seems to have been lost because he was transferred to Baily Ward in the middle of the night. No proper handover. There was no referral to physiotherapists and yet the Trusts own paperwork says that exercises should be given by a Physiotherapist and commenced by the patient after seventy two hours of the fracture occurring. No speedy referral to physiotherapists. Within his notes was an utterly inadequate document explaining what the Patient needs to do with a fractured shoulder, however, as the Ward Manager pointed out it does not say what type of sling should be applied for this particular Patient and so she apparently had no idea anything was amiss. This document was not fit for purpose either for the patient or the ward. ”

    Source location

    Leslie Isaac LERNER · 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