Recurring concern

Unreliable coordination and escalation between care providers and mental health services

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 25 Apr 2017•Latest report 22 Dec 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in formal arrangements between care providers and mental-health services for contact, referral, information sharing, crisis-support coordination, responsibility allocation and escalation to senior or specialist mental-health teams.

Not included

  • Excludes failures confined to a single mental-health service’s internal assessment, treatment, staffing or appointment process.
  • Excludes generic communication or coordination deficiencies without a bounded care-provider and mental-health-service interface.
  • Excludes failures occurring after the relevant mental-health service has been reliably contacted and accepted responsibility, unless the cross-provider coordination process itself remains deficient.
  • Excludes ordinary differences in service remit or availability where no unsafe failure of contact, referral, information sharing or escalation is identified.
Reports
17

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
22

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2017–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
24

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.

NHS England5
Department of Health and Social Care4
NHS Northamptonshire Integrated Care Board2
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust2
Betsi Cadwaladr University LHB1
Care Quality Commission1
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust1
Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust1
Department for Education1
Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust1
Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust1
East London NHS Foundation Trust1
Elysium Healthcare Limited1
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust1
Health and Safety Executive1

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. Northamptonshire

    AI-generated summary

    Wendy Siobhan EYLES · 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

    Wendy Siobhan Eyles died aged 55 on 31 October 2024 after being struck by a train at Kettering Station; the inquest concluded that appropriate mental health support and intervention had not been provided. Concerns included the absence of a protocol for patients receiving both private and NHS psychiatric care, risks from poor communication about medication changes, and possible lack of NHS awareness of private psychiatric treatment.

    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 communicate medication changes between private and NHS psychiatric providers

    Wider context from the report

    “One of the findings of the Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) was that ".. there is no protocol for patients open to private and NHS psychiatry at Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. The Psychiatrist’s role in patient care is to review and recommend appropriate medication and it is problematic if two Consultants are overseeing this at the same time. It can cause confusion and detriment to the patient if medication changes are not communicated between parties and represents a risk to patient safety... It is notable that CMHT operational managers from across the service differ in their views on the appropriateness of a patient being open to NHS and private services at the same time...". It also emerged at Inquest that a NHS Consultant may not be aware that the patient is also receiving private psychiatry. Where the GP is notified of private psychiatry, it does not trigger a notification to NHS mental health services. Notification of the dual treatment may then be entirely dependent upon the information being shared by the patient. ”

    Source location

    Wendy Siobhan EYLES · 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

    Failure of notification pathways to identify patients receiving private and NHS psychiatry

    Wider context from the report

    “One of the findings of the Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) was that ".. there is no protocol for patients open to private and NHS psychiatry at Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. The Psychiatrist’s role in patient care is to review and recommend appropriate medication and it is problematic if two Consultants are overseeing this at the same time. It can cause confusion and detriment to the patient if medication changes are not communicated between parties and represents a risk to patient safety... It is notable that CMHT operational managers from across the service differ in their views on the appropriateness of a patient being open to NHS and private services at the same time...". It also emerged at Inquest that a NHS Consultant may not be aware that the patient is also receiving private psychiatry. Where the GP is notified of private psychiatry, it does not trigger a notification to NHS mental health services. Notification of the dual treatment may then be entirely dependent upon the information being shared by the patient. ”

    Source location

    Wendy Siobhan EYLES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · 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

    Lack of a consistent protocol for patients receiving private and NHS psychiatry

    Wider context from the report

    “One of the findings of the Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) was that ".. there is no protocol for patients open to private and NHS psychiatry at Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. The Psychiatrist’s role in patient care is to review and recommend appropriate medication and it is problematic if two Consultants are overseeing this at the same time. It can cause confusion and detriment to the patient if medication changes are not communicated between parties and represents a risk to patient safety... It is notable that CMHT operational managers from across the service differ in their views on the appropriateness of a patient being open to NHS and private services at the same time...". It also emerged at Inquest that a NHS Consultant may not be aware that the patient is also receiving private psychiatry. Where the GP is notified of private psychiatry, it does not trigger a notification to NHS mental health services. Notification of the dual treatment may then be entirely dependent upon the information being shared by the patient. ”

    Source location

    Wendy Siobhan EYLES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. Northamptonshire

    AI-generated summary

    Wendy Siobhan EYLES · 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

    Wendy Siobhan Eyles died on 31 October 2024 after being struck by a train at Kettering Station having climbed down from the platform. The report identified concerns about the lack of a protocol for patients receiving both private and NHS psychiatric care, including risks that medication changes and treatment arrangements may not be communicated between services.

    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 notification pathways to ensure NHS mental health services are aware of private psychiatric treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “One of the findings of the Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) was that “.. there is no protocol for patients open to private and NHS psychiatry at Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. The Psychiatrist’s role in patient care is to review and recommend appropriate medication and it is problematic if two Consultants are overseeing this at the same time. It can cause confusion and detriment to the patient if medication changes are not communicated between parties and represents a risk to patient safety... It is notable that CMHT operational managers from across the service differ in their views on the appropriateness of a patient being open to NHS and private services at the same time..”. It also emerged at Inquest that a NHS Consultant may not be aware that the patient is also receiving private psychiatry. Where the GP is notified of private psychiatry, it does not trigger a notification to NHS mental health services. Notification of the dual treatment may then be entirely dependent upon the information being shared by the patient. ”

    Source location

    Wendy Siobhan EYLES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · 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

    Lack of a protocol for patients receiving concurrent private and NHS psychiatry

    Wider context from the report

    “One of the findings of the Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) was that “.. there is no protocol for patients open to private and NHS psychiatry at Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. The Psychiatrist’s role in patient care is to review and recommend appropriate medication and it is problematic if two Consultants are overseeing this at the same time. It can cause confusion and detriment to the patient if medication changes are not communicated between parties and represents a risk to patient safety... It is notable that CMHT operational managers from across the service differ in their views on the appropriateness of a patient being open to NHS and private services at the same time..”. It also emerged at Inquest that a NHS Consultant may not be aware that the patient is also receiving private psychiatry. Where the GP is notified of private psychiatry, it does not trigger a notification to NHS mental health services. Notification of the dual treatment may then be entirely dependent upon the information being shared by the patient. ”

    Source location

    Wendy Siobhan EYLES · 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

    Failure to communicate medication changes between private and NHS psychiatric providers

    Wider context from the report

    “One of the findings of the Patient Safety Incident Investigation (PSII) was that “.. there is no protocol for patients open to private and NHS psychiatry at Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. The Psychiatrist’s role in patient care is to review and recommend appropriate medication and it is problematic if two Consultants are overseeing this at the same time. It can cause confusion and detriment to the patient if medication changes are not communicated between parties and represents a risk to patient safety... It is notable that CMHT operational managers from across the service differ in their views on the appropriateness of a patient being open to NHS and private services at the same time..”. It also emerged at Inquest that a NHS Consultant may not be aware that the patient is also receiving private psychiatry. Where the GP is notified of private psychiatry, it does not trigger a notification to NHS mental health services. Notification of the dual treatment may then be entirely dependent upon the information being shared by the patient. ”

    Source location

    Wendy Siobhan EYLES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop and complete a Trust-wide protocol for managing patients receiving simultaneous NHS and private psychiatric care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Protocol for patients receiving NHS and private psychiatry Patient safety is of paramount importance to NHFT. We understand that there are risks to a patient’s safety when they are receiving private psychiatric care alongside our own treatment plan. To manage these risks, we are developing a new private care protocol.”

    Source location

    2026-0153 - Response from Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 March 2026

    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 Trust cannot ensure notification of private psychiatric care because patients and private providers are not obliged to inform it.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This new private care protocol will guide clinicians throughout the organisation on how to approach circumstances when it becomes known that their patient is accessing care from a private healthcare provider. It will operate within our existing policy framework, linked to existing policies and procedures for information sharing and record keeping. Work to develop this new protocol is underway and will be completed by the end of this month. Once in place it will apply to new and existing patients. Please let me know if you would like to receive a copy of the protocol and I shall arrange for it to be sent to you.”

    Source location

    2026-0153 - Response from Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 March 2026

    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 Integrated Care Board is responsible for confirming actions to encourage GPs to notify the Trust about concurrent private psychiatric care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Sharing information when patients are accessing private psychiatry I note that you sent a copy of your Report to the Northamptonshire Integrated Care Board (NICB), as the body responsible for commissioning primary care services from GPs.”

    Source location

    2026-0153 - Response from Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 March 2026

    Open published response
  3. Derby and Derbyshire

    AI-generated summary

    Hannah Louise Booth · 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

    Hannah Louise Booth, who had been diagnosed with post-natal depression after giving birth in July 2024, drowned in the Goyt River on 6 January 2025 after sending a message evidencing her intention to take her own life. The report identified concerns about information sharing between services, including different record systems, incomplete records, and relevant information about Hannah being recorded only in her baby’s records. Increasing contact about her baby’s development was not shared with perinatal mental health services or recognised as potentially indicating that Hannah was struggling.

    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 escalate and share increasing contact with health visitors with perinatal mental health services

    Wider context from the report

    “This inquest has exposed important issues with information sharing between services and also within services. Those issues are: • Difficulties encountered because different IT systems were being used for record keeping in different services. Essentially a lack of a single patient record. • A lack of a shared understanding of what is relevant information and needs to be made available to other services. • Relevant notes being made in records of baby and not repeated in notes of the mum. Further detail: 1. Sett Valley, the health visitors and perinatal mental health services all had information about Hannah that was potentially relevant to her mental health, but none had the whole picture. It was evident that had those within the perinatal mental health services known about Hannah’s increasing frequency of contact with services about her baby’s development, it would have prompted further contact by them with Hannah and prompted a review of risk and support offered. They did not know and there was no further contact. 2. There was no single electronic patient record accessible to all services. Whilst the perinatal mental health and health visitors used SystmOne, Sett Valley did not. The health visitor had not informed Sett Valley about the contact Hannah had had with them on 27th December so that the GP seeing Hannah on 31st did not know that Hannah was beginning to make increased contact with services about her concerns and did not share any information about that consultation with other services. 3. There was increasing contact with health visitors that was not escalated to or shared with perinatal mental health. The significance of the increased contact, to Hannah’s mental health, did not appear to have been understood. The concerns raised at each contact around her baby’s development were dealt with at face value with exploration and examination of her baby’s development and reassurances given to Hannah regarding the particular concerns raised. The evidence revealed that it was not the individual concerns raised that were relevant to Hannah’s mental health but the fact that she was making more frequent contact which suggested she was struggling. There are no policies, guidance or any shared understanding between services of what might be relevant information to be shared and when. 4. Within both Sett Valley and health visitor records there was potentially important information relevant to Hannah’s mental health recorded only within her baby’s records. At any future appointments concerning Hannah the relevant medical history available on her record would have been incomplete. It also meant that whilst the perinatal mental health services had access to the health visitor notes in relation to Hannah (because they both used SystmOne), even had they had cause to look at Hannah’s notes they would still not have had all relevant information. There are no policies or guidance regarding when information potentially relevant to both mother and baby should be placed in both records or cross referenced. This appears to be particularly important in the perinatal period. ”

    Source location

    Hannah Louise Booth · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · 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

    Use the Perinatal Mental Health Service advice line for consultation and proactively share relevant contextual information about patients already receiving its care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “During this meeting, it was agreed that the Perinatal Mental Health Service should be utilised by the Health Visiting Service as an advice and consultation resource, in addition to the existing formal referral pathways. Health Visitors are able to contact the Perinatal Mental Health Service advice line to discuss concerns, seek professional advice, or share relevant information without the need to submit a formal referral.”

    Source location

    Response from Derbyshire Community Health Service NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 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 and circulate an infographic explaining the advice line, appropriate use, and information to share, with practical examples for Health Visiting staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To support clarity and consistency in practice, the Perinatal Mental Health Service has agreed to develop an infographic for Health Visiting staff. This will provide clear, accessible guidance on:”

    Source location

    Response from Derbyshire Community Health Service NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 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

    Update Health Visiting Service standard operating procedures to formalize information-sharing expectations and use of the Perinatal Mental Health Service advice line.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a result of this discussion, the Health Visiting Service is in the process of updating its Standard Operating Procedures to reflect the agreed approach to information sharing and the use of the Perinatal Mental Health Service advice line. This update will provide clear, consistent guidance to staff and reinforce expectations regarding early consultation and sharing of relevant information.”

    Source location

    Response from Derbyshire Community Health Service NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 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

    Publish perinatal mental health care pathway guidance and provide supporting e-learning resources for healthcare staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The NHS has expanded specialist perinatal mental health support and access has more than doubled (113%) from 31,163 patients in March 2020 to 66,468 in October 2025. NHS England previously published guidance on perinatal mental health care pathways in May 2018, to support all healthcare professionals working across the wider perinatal mental health pathway in identifying cases requiring specialist input. This is supported by e-learning resources for all staff, including modules for health visitors and a broader perinatal mental health resource covering risks to parents.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 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

    Encourage specialist perinatal mental health teams to include record keeping in training for the wider perinatal pathway.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following this case, NHS England via the regional Perinatal Mental Health networks will encourage specialist perinatal mental health teams to include record keeping as a component of their training to the wider pathway, to help support staff to understand their experiences for documenting assessments, risks, red flags, information sharing and consent.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 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

    Provide providers with guidance on recording information relevant to mother and baby and sharing information about frequent service access.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “DDICB is committed to ensuring that providers understand their obligations to share information between providers, where that information relates to the delivery of patient care. We note the coronial concern around the lack of policy or guidance relating to the recording of information potentially relevant to both mother and baby; and guidance relating to information sharing between healthcare providers in the case of a pattern of more frequent access to services.”

    Source location

    Response from Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 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

    Continuing to share only clinically relevant contacts is considered safer and sufficient; emailing every consultation would burden the perinatal mental health team.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regards to sharing ongoing information with the perinatal mental health team it was discussed whether clinicians should request for the secretarial team to email any consultations relating to mental health (not just a deteriorating condition) and the perinatal mental health team can decide whether this is relevant to the care they are providing to the patient. However, it was felt that emailing every consultation to the perinatal team would put an unsafe burden on the perinatal team and we as a Practice consider that it is better and safer for us to continue with our normal practice of sharing only relevant contacts if we feel it is clinically indicated. This is consistent with the hundreds of other specialities/patient groups that we consult with.”

    Source location

    Response from Sett Valley Medical centre
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 December 2025

    Open published response
  4. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Jessica Lynda Smithson · 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

    Jessica Lynda Smithson, aged 27, died by suicide after contacting a crisis text mental health service following an alleged serious sexual assault. The service did not contact the Metropolitan Police despite messages indicating an immediate risk to her life. The report identified concerns about inconsistent procedures among charity crisis text services and the absence of a commissioned crisis text mental health service in Greater Manchester.

    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 charity crisis text services to link with local NHS Trusts and pathways

    Wider context from the report

    “(b) At present this gap in a health-related service is being filled by charity organisations who have different policies and processes regarding actions to be taken if a person is at immediate risk of suicide. The charities are not under the Department of Health so there is no standard policy or procedure for them to follow if there is a real and immediate risk to a service user’s life. Hence there is a lack of consistency as to the support an individual can receive when there is an immediate risk to their life, for example whilst the charity involved in this case have an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Service to help locate someone whose whereabouts are unknown, this is not the case for all charities. In addition, as they are not linked into local NHS Trusts, they have limited ability to understand local mental health NHS pathways or to offer a more co-ordinated response where someone is already under local mental health services. ”

    Source location

    Jessica Lynda Smithson · 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

    Implement a phased, locally delivered crisis-text service integrated with the Greater Manchester 111 mental-health crisis line.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS GM alongside the mental health trusts have considered options for the provision of crisis text services and are currently considering our preferred model through our Greater Manchester Mental Health Clinical Effectiveness Group (CEG) as our established clinical governance route. Our preferred model is for a text service to be incorporated into the Greater Manchester 111 Mental Health crisis line service so that texts are handled by Greater Manchester Mental Health First Responders based within the team.”

    Source location

    Response from Greater Manchester Integrated Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    The non-NHS charity’s service delivery and clinical governance arrangements fall outside the respondent’s ability to comment on.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We would suggest the Coroner’s Office approaches the charity directly for further information about the support provided, if required. As this is a non-NHS provider, we are unable to comment on their service delivery arrangements or clinical governance processes.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Independent charitable organisations providing crisis text services are outside Government and NHS control.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I hope you will understand that charitable organisations providing crisis text services are independent of both Government and the NHS.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 August 2025

    Open published response
  5. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Sheridan Tate Pickett · 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

    On 9 August 2024, Sheridan Tate Pickett sustained fatal injuries after falling from a height out of a window; the inquest concluded that the death was suicide. The concern was that information about an overdose and advice not to recommence ADHD medication was not shared with the private ADHD provider, and that there were no current guidelines governing information sharing between private psychiatry providers and NHS services involved in parallel 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

    Lack of guidelines for communication and information sharing between private psychiatry providers and NHS services providing parallel neurodiversity care

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The inquest heard evidence that Mr Pickett had a history of mental health issues and received an online diagnosis of ADHD from a private service provider (which prescribed Mr Pickett with medication too). Following his diagnosis Mr Pickett was admitted into an NHS hospital having taken an overdose. In their discharge letter the hospital suggested that the ADHD medication should not be recommenced. This information was not provided to the private ADHD provider which continued to prescribe Mr Pickett with ADHD medication. I am concerned that there are no current guidelines governing communication and information sharing as between private psychiatry providers offering assessment, care and treatment in relation to neurodiversity and NHS services involved with providing care and treatment in parallel. ”

    Source location

    Sheridan Tate Pickett · 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

    Existing hospital discharge guidance already governs information sharing between private and NHS providers, including medication and care information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In your report, you raise concerns that there are no current guidelines governing communication and information sharing between private providers and NHS providers. The following guidance, Hospital discharge and community support guidance - GOV.UK states that:”

    Source location

    Response from DHSC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 2025

    Open published response
  6. Inner West London

    AI-generated summary

    Judith Maike OBHOLZER · 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

    Mrs Obholzer died by suicide on 12 July 2023 after jumping in front of a moving train, following a significant period of worsening depression and anxiety. Concerns included delays in NHS mental-health assessment and waiting-list placement, unclear routes for private practitioners to obtain NHS crisis support, difficulties contacting her GP, and the absence of shared medical notes between private and NHS providers.

    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 in referral and crisis-support processes for patients receiving private and NHS treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “1. In the course of the evidence it was confirmed that there is a significant pressure on NHS mental health services. It seems likely that there will be an increase in patients obtaining private support while waiting for NHS support (and often only being able to afford such support for a limited time and to a limited extent and doing so only while waiting for NHS support), as happened in this case. Consideration should be given to ensuring that there is sufficient clarity in processes such as referrals and crisis support where private practitioners are providing treatment as well as the NHS, ensuring sharing of information and notes where relevant and necessary and ensuring that the NHS provision is not assessed as unnecessary simply because someone has obtained private support as an interim measure. ”

    Source location

    Judith Maike OBHOLZER · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · 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

    Unclear urgent and crisis referral pathways from private practitioners to NHS services

    Wider context from the report

    “2. In the course of the evidence the private consultant psychiatrist gave evidence that he was unable to refer patients directly to NHS provided crisis teams as a direct alternative to informal treatment at a private hospital. The evidence from the South West London and St George’s Mental Health Trust was that direct referrals can be made although the evidence on the exact mechanism was unclear. In Mrs Obholzer’s case, the (apparent) lack of ability of the private consultant psychiatrist to directly refer to the crisis team meant that she did not receive the community crisis support alternative to hospital admission that she required. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the pathway for urgent/crisis referrals from private practitioners to the NHS are clear to all (both for this area and throughout the country) and, if it is not already the case, to ensuring a process that allows private practitioners to arrange crisis support through the NHS directly. ”

    Source location

    Judith Maike OBHOLZER · 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

    Maintain a ratified Private Providers Shared Care Policy defining Trust and private-provider roles and responsibilities.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “However, in addition to the DH guidance, the Trust has a ‘Private Providers Shared Care Policy’ (Appendix 1) which was ratified in January 2024. This clearly sets out the respective roles and responsibilities of the Trust and private providers. This policy was drafted with input from Consultant Psychiatrists from a private provider and supplements the DH guidance to add specific clarity for the Trust.”

    Source location

    Response from SW London Mental Health Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    Make the Private Providers Shared Care Policy accessible on the Trust website and communicate its existence internally and through local GP networks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust accepts that this policy was not referenced and it appears there was a lack of appreciation that the policy existed during the Inquest. In response to the concern raised in the PFDR, the Trust will ensure this policy is made accessible on the Trust's website (in the GPs/Professionals section of our website) and its existence will be further communicated internally and also through our local GP networks.”

    Source location

    Response from SW London Mental Health Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    Improve and publish prominent website information directing healthcare professionals to urgent mental-health crisis referrals, including the 24/7 crisis line.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In response to the PFDR, the Trust has reviewed and further improved the information available for all healthcare professionals on the Trust website to ensure it is more easily accessible. The link (button) on the front page of the website is now red to make it even more prominent and marked ‘Urgent Help’ (Home - Website (swlstg.nhs.uk)).”

    Source location

    Response from SW London Mental Health Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    Share crisis-referral information externally through social media, website news articles, and campaign materials.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Additionally, we have again shared our crisis information externally, which we do at regular intervals. This includes on social media and in extra places on our website including news articles and in information about our campaigns.”

    Source location

    Response from SW London Mental Health Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 31 July 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 about the Urgent Care Pathway, checking private treatment and consent, and the Private Providers Shared Care Policy through a Monthly Learning Bulletin and local GP networks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust will remind all staff of the ‘Urgent Care Pathway’ in a Monthly Learning Bulletin article (to be published by October 2024). Staff will also be reminded to regularly check if service users are receiving private treatment and discuss consent to share information. Staff will also be signposted to the Trust’s ‘Private Providers Shared Care Policy’, so they are aware of the process if they are contacted by a private provider regarding a patient in crisis. This policy will also be shared through our local GP networks.”

    Source location

    Response from SW London Mental Health Trust
    Page 6 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    Review the interface between NHS and non-NHS-funded independent health providers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Work is also in progress to review the interface between the NHS and non-NHS funded independent health providers. This work is in its infancy, but NHS England can provide an update to the Coroner in due course if this would assist. We understand that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) are also undertaking work regarding standards for online care and are exploring opportunities for better sharing of information both into private sector providers and receiving information back to the patient’s registered GP practice from private providers.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    Expand urgent and emergency mental health care and access to crisis services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As part of its Long Term Plan commitments to improve mental health care, NHS England has increased investment in adult and older adult community mental health services by £1 billion per year since 2019/20. Commitments in the plan have also included a significant expansion of urgent and emergency mental health care and access to crisis services.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    No national or local system provides contact details for every private provider, so referral information cannot feasibly reach all providers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Unfortunately, there is currently no national or local system which enables the Trust to have the contact details of every private provider operating in its catchment area and, therefore, it is not feasible to provide information about the referral process to all these providers and those we are not aware exists. Furthermore, in Mrs Obholzer’s case, the private provider that gave evidence at the Inquest and who assessed Mrs Obholzer shortly before her death, was not based in the catchment for our Trust.”

    Source location

    Response from SW London Mental Health Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    Private providers can refer patients directly to crisis services through the Mental Health Crisis Line, 111, 999 or A&E.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “However, the Trust would like to assure the Coroner that private providers can refer their patients to the Trust’s crisis services when required. Private providers can telephone or make a referral about someone they are concerned for to our crisis services via the Trust’s Mental Health Crisis Line in the same way as a GP or other non-Trust health professional. If a private provider contacts the Mental Health Crisis Line, advice will be provided, and their patient will be directed into the correct care pathway dependent upon the patient’s presentation and risk factors. In an emergency scenario, private providers can also call 999 or 111 and patients are able to attend A&E to access the pathway for crisis services.”

    Source location

    Response from SW London Mental Health Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    The relevant NHS mental health trust is responsible for providing further information about its emergency referral signposting for private providers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS England has also engaged with South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust. They have advised us that at the time Judith required NHS crisis support, their website provided clear signposting for private providers needing to make an emergency mental health referral. Since receiving your Report, we also note that they have made this more visually prominent on the website. I will refer you to the Trust for further information, who I understand are issuing their own response to you.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 31 July 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

    National review of psychiatric referral pathways is considered a matter for the Department of Health and NHS England.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust notes the Coroner’s desire that this aspect of the PFDR is reviewed from a national perspective and considers that the DH and NHSE will be able to address this within their response.”

    Source location

    Response from SW London Mental Health Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 31 July 2024

    Open published response
  7. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Mr Oliver Beswetherick · 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 Oliver Beswetherick, who had a history of depression, bulimia and bipolar affective disorder, was found dead after falling from his flat on 4 September 2020. The report raised concern that mental health crisis teams did not have contact details for psychiatric liaison services and crisis teams in neighbouring boroughs, hindering direct referrals and the sharing of case information.

    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 contact details for neighbouring psychiatric liaison and crisis mental health teams

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It became evidence during the inquest that CMHT/ Crisis teams do not have contact details of: (i) Psychiatric liaison nurse services in neighbouring (out of their locality) boroughs based in Accident & Emergency departments, or details of (ii) CMHT/ crisis teams in neighbouring boroughs. Such contact could provide for direct referral, contact and passing on of knowledge of cases between neighbouring organisations, especially when individuals have already been assessed and asked to attend for a face-to-face consultation. Otherwise, those individuals who seek help, may have to revisit the same process of being interviewed on multiple occasions with a sense of déjà vu and anxiety that they are not obtaining the urgent assistance and support that they require. That may lead to them not engaging when they had hitherto made every attempt to do so. To provide those contact details would seem a relatively simple task, so teams could contact each other, and the local psychiatric liaison nurses based within the A&Es. ”

    Source location

    Mr Oliver Beswetherick · 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

    Existing NHS Service Finder and website directories provide professionals with current neighbouring mental health service contact details and referral information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Your Report raises the concern that Community Mental Health and Crisis Teams do not have the contact details of Psychiatric Liaison, Community Mental Health, and Crisis Teams within neighbouring boroughs.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 February 2024

    Open published response
  8. North Wales (East and Central)

    AI-generated summary

    Philip David Taylor · 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

    Philip David Taylor had mental health difficulties, was admitted to a private psychiatric unit outside the NHS North Wales area, and died by suicide at home on 23 August 2023 after discharge to the Home Treatment Team. The concerns included inadequate information sharing and coordination between the Health Board and the private unit, including delayed or missing discharge documentation and no agreed written standards for communication and documentation.

    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 agreed minimum information-sharing standards between the Health Board and private psychiatric facilities

    Wider context from the report

    “e. There was no evidence at Inquest of any written agreement or standard operating procedure or similar between the Health Board and private facility as to minimum standard requirements or expectations between both organisations e.g. what documentation should be shared, how it is to be shared, when documentation should be shared, the timeliness of sharing documentation etc. f. It is concerning that such minimum standards are not set out and agreed between the Health Board and this private psychiatric unit in a situation where many patients are likely to be treated there. It is not known whether or not such minimum standards or Agreement exists with other out of area private units. g. In the event that patients are to be treated in private units out of the area then there will be a risk of future deaths if such minimum standards regarding sharing of information and communication are not set and agreed between the Health Board and private facility. There had been no consideration of this as part of the actions arising from the Health Board’s own investigation. ”

    Source location

    Philip David Taylor · 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 a standard operating procedure governing information sharing, repatriation and discharge planning, and key documentation for out-of-area acute placements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The learning from the inquest of Mr Taylor has identified that a standard operating procedure is required (SoP) and must include the requirements for sharing information, joined up planning for repatriation and/or discharge and standards for the development and sharing of key documentation.”

    Source location

    Response from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 February 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

    Monitor compliance with the standard operating procedure through local and divisional Putting Things Right meetings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A multi-disciplinary task and finish group has been established, chaired by the Head of Integrated strategy and development, who is leading on the development of the SoP in collaboration with both operational and clinical teams. Progress will be overseen by the MHLD Policy and Procedure Group. Following ratification, the Task and Finish Group will oversee the launch and implementation of the SoP and compliance with the SoP will be monitored through established local and divisional Putting Things Right Meetings. I am advised that the SoP will be fully ratified by the end of August 2024.”

    Source location

    Response from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 February 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

    The framework agreement and internal policy adequately govern information sharing; concurrent discharge letters are not contractually required.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Elysium internal policy is to ensure the relevant information is given to home teams so that they can follow up within 72 hours (as was done here). In case it is of assistance to put the issue in context, the contract we have with Surrey requires that information only within 5 days of discharge.”

    Source location

    Response from Elysium Healthcare
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 February 2024

    Open published response
  9. West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    AI-generated summary

    Caroline Victoria Forte · 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

    Caroline Victoria Forte had been receiving inpatient mental health treatment and was granted Section 17 weekend leave to stay at her parents' address. She was found hanging on 20 February 2022. Concerns included inadequate communication within the ward and with her family, the absence of an overarching care plan or risk assessment before leave, failure to follow the Section 17 leave policy, and difficulties sharing information from her private psychiatrist with NHS services.

    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 pathway for sharing private psychiatrist consultation and treatment details with NHS inpatient settings

    Wider context from the report

    “Ms Forte had for a number of years been seeing a private psychiatrist. Details of her consultations and treatments were not made readily available to those working in the NHS Trusts. It appears that there is no clear pathway for details of any private psychiatrist consultations to be shared with those in either the acute or mental health inpatient settings. The concerns are that any relevant history may be lost and details of any regular medication being prescribed may not, in a time of crisis, be immediately known. ”

    Source location

    Caroline Victoria Forte · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  10. Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire

    AI-generated summary

    Kieran Joseph Kevan CRIMMINS · 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

    Kieran Joseph Kevan Crimmins took his own life after discharge from the Crisis and Home Treatment Team, in circumstances where the report found ongoing psychiatric monitoring and support would have been appropriate. The principal concerns were incomplete or inaccurately recorded actions, the way significant information was communicated to him, and apparent gaps in routes back into mental health services and communication between providers.

    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 communication and information sharing between Primary Mental Health Services and Tier 2 therapy providers

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) I expressed concern that someone having been discharged from the CRHT, there appeared to be no route back into the Mental Health Service short of a re-referral to the CRHT itself via A & E for someone who remains vulnerable by reason of their mental state and who is receiving therapy as part of the discharge plan. This is in the context of someone who was receiving support from the Integrated Psychology Service (“IPTS”) and the Dyfed Drug and Alcohol Service (“DDAS”), both of whom were engaged in providing appropriate therapies. My concern is that there appears to be an issue in relation to lines of communication and information sharing between Primary Mental Health Services and Tier 2 providers of therapy. ”

    Source location

    Kieran Joseph Kevan CRIMMINS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026