Recurring concern

Unreliable Mental Health Act detention arrangements

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 12 Nov 2015•Latest report 28 Oct 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in explicitly Mental Health Act detention arrangements, including safe-detention instructions, lawful application of detention powers, transfer to appropriate secure mental-health facilities and coordination needed to maintain safe detention and treatment under the Act.

Not included

  • Excludes Section 136-specific procedures where the assertion is confined to Section 136; that named process has a separate existing concern.
  • Excludes failures in clinical treatment, discharge or follow-up after Mental Health Act detention arrangements have operated reliably.
  • Excludes generic mental-health service capacity, communication or staffing deficiencies unless they directly impair Mental Health Act detention, transfer or safe protective arrangements.
  • Excludes unrelated Mental Capacity Act, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and ordinary informal-patient processes unless the assertion also concerns Mental Health Act detention arrangements.
Reports
17

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
20

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
45

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 England6
Department of Health and Social Care3
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust2
All Interested Persons1
Avon and Somerset Constabulary1
Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust1
Barnsley Hospital1
Birmingham City Council1
Birmingham Women'S and Children'S NHS Foundation Trust1
Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust1
Cygnet Health Care Limited1
Devon & Cornwall Police1
Devon Partnership NHS Trust1
Elysium Healthcare Limited1
Epsom Hospital1

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. Exeter and Greater Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Lewis Charles Francis · 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

    Lewis Charles Francis was arrested after stabbing his mother while acutely psychotic and was remanded to HM Prison Exeter after no ready medium secure mental health hospital transfer facility was available. He died at the prison on 24 April 2017 by suicide as a result of suspension by a ligature. Concerns included the lack of a ready transfer mechanism from police custody to medium secure mental health facilities, and insufficient understanding of the needs and vulnerabilities of prisoners on the autistic spectrum.

    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 mechanism for ready transfer of people in police custody suspected of or charged with serious crime to a medium secure mental health facility for assessment or treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) At present there is no mechanism for the ready transfer of a person in police custody within the police areas of Devon and Cornwall, Avon and Somerset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire from police custody to a medium secure mental health facility for assessment / treatment under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 where such a person is suspected of or charged with a serious crime. Such an arrangement exists in the West Midlands where a Memorandum of Understanding has been developed and agreed between relevant agencies. ”

    Source location

    Lewis Charles Francis · 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

    Continue liaising with South West Provider Collaborative partners to help develop the regional Memorandum of Understanding.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Action 2: Further evidence at the inquest suggested that an initiative was underway through the good offices at Avon and Somerset Police to cooperate with the South West Provider Collaborative in the development of the Memorandum of Understanding detailed above. Confirmation on behalf of the named police forces is required that they are willing to work towards the development of such a Memorandum of Understanding.”

    Source location

    2020-0074-Response-from-Avon-and-Somerset-Police_Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 9 April 2020

    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

    Work with other force areas and the South West Provider Collaborative to develop a Memorandum of Understanding.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It has been identified there is an issue with the pathways within Mental Health Services and not within the Police Service. There are limited options using criminal justice powers and the Police are reliant on the NHS to divert from those. In line with Recommendation 6 (2) of the Coroner’s Regulation 28 report, Wiltshire Police is working with other force areas and the South West Provider Collaborative to develop the proposed Memorandum of Understanding.”

    Source location

    2020-0074-Response-from-Wiltshire-Police_Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 April 2020

    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

    Mental health service pathways are outside the Police Service’s remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It has been identified there is an issue with the pathways within Mental Health Services and not within the Police Service. There are limited options using criminal justice powers and the Police are reliant on the NHS to divert from those. In line with Recommendation 6 (2) of the Coroner’s Regulation 28 report, Wiltshire Police is working with other force areas and the South West Provider Collaborative to develop the proposed Memorandum of Understanding.”

    Source location

    2020-0074-Response-from-Wiltshire-Police_Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 April 2020

    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 Police rely on the NHS to provide diversion from limited criminal justice options.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It has been identified there is an issue with the pathways within Mental Health Services and not within the Police Service. There are limited options using criminal justice powers and the Police are reliant on the NHS to divert from those. In line with Recommendation 6 (2) of the Coroner’s Regulation 28 report, Wiltshire Police is working with other force areas and the South West Provider Collaborative to develop the proposed Memorandum of Understanding.”

    Source location

    2020-0074-Response-from-Wiltshire-Police_Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 April 2020

    Open published response
  2. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Gurdeep Singh Dundhal · 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

    Gurdeep Singh Dundhal, who had paranoid schizophrenia and used illicit substances, died after jumping from the fifth storey of a car park on 27 April 2019; he passed away in hospital on 28 April 2019. The concerns included delays and resource problems in arranging a mental health assessment, missing information during the assessment, the decision to use section 2 rather than the recommended section 3, and failure to investigate and learn lessons across agencies.

    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 place patients on the recommended Mental Health Act section

    Wider context from the report

    “3. When Mr Dundhal was admitted to hospital on 15/03/19 he was placed on S2 of the Mental Health Act when his clinical team had specifically recommended he be placed on S3. No explanation was available for this. Evidence at the inquest suggested this was a decision made by the Approved Mental health practitioner from Birmingham City Council. Consideration needs to given as to why a S3 was not put in place in accordance with the recommendation. ”

    Source location

    Gurdeep Singh Dundhal · 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

    Delays in arranging assessment, detention choice and Walsall Council’s investigation were matters for the other identified bodies to address.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You will appreciate that in respect of points 1, 3 and 4, PGH is not in a position to comment and that (i) any delays in arranging the MHA assessment; (ii) the use of Section 2 rather than a Section 3 detention on admission; and (iii) the failure by Walsall MBC to undertake an investigation are matters for the other interested persons noted above to address.”

    Source location

    2019-0294-Response-by-The-Priory
    Page 1 · response
    Published 1 November 2019

    Open published response
  3. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Miss Kirsty Walker · 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

    Miss Kirsty Walker died in hospital on 27 September 2015 after being found unresponsive in prison with a ligature tied around her neck. She had a history of self-harm and had engaged in 235 acts of self-harm during her imprisonment, including 215 involving ligatures. The report raised concern that prisoners were taking well over 14 days to transfer to secure hospitals under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983, presenting a risk of further deaths.

    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

    Delays in transferring prisoners to secure hospitals under s.47 of the Mental Health Act 1983

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that the average time to transfer a prisoner to a secure hospital under s.47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is well in excess of the 14 days envisaged by the 2009 Bradley Report and presents a risk of further deaths. ”

    Source location

    Miss Kirsty Walker · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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

    Complete the review of guidance on prisoner transfer and remission under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS England has regard to the above Good Practice Guide in relation to transfer times from prison to mental health inpatient services and is now responsible for reviewing the Good Practice Guide. The aim of the review is to provide for more clinically informed timescales for the transfer and remission of prisoners to and from mental health hospital. This revised document has been developed with stakeholders and is currently being prepared in readiness for public consultation which is anticipated to take place early in 2019.”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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

    Submit revised prisoner transfer and remission guidance for public consultation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS England has regard to the above Good Practice Guide in relation to transfer times from prison to mental health inpatient services and is now responsible for reviewing the Good Practice Guide. The aim of the review is to provide for more clinically informed timescales for the transfer and remission of prisoners to and from mental health hospital. This revised document has been developed with stakeholders and is currently being prepared in readiness for public consultation which is anticipated to take place early in 2019.”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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

    Implement the revised prisoner transfer and remission guidance nationally after consultation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As above a review of the Good Practice Guidance 2011 has taken place, led by NHS England. The revised guidance will be submitted for public consultation prior to implementation nationally, and will consider the whole process of referral, assessment, transfer and remission.”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 4 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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

    Conduct annual audits benchmarking prisoner transfer and remission data, including the current audit cycle.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. An annual audit benchmarking data in relation to the transfer and remission process;”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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 improved performance management through increased collection and analysis of transfer pathway data.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2. Improved performance management through increased and improved collection and analysis of data;”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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

    Disseminate identified good-practice examples from prison-to-mental-health transfer pathways nationally.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In respect to the improved performance management and capability that is being developed in this area, good practice examples relating to the pathway between prisons and respective mental health inpatient services are being identified in some parts of the country and processes to disseminate and share this information nationally is a specific focus.”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 4 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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

    Conduct demand and capacity reviews for adult high-, medium- and low-secure mental health services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. A demand and capacity review in relation to adult high, medium and low-secure services;”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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

    Roll out nationally the provider-led management of adult medium- and low-secure service budgets and whole-pathway responsibility.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. An initiative was proposed in December 2015 and then piloted from 2016, where mental health care providers were encouraged to take on the management of tertiary budgets for adult medium and low secure services and were able to work in partnership with other providers to enable the local system to be responsive and take ownership of the whole pathway including where that related to prison transfers. In February 2018 it was agreed that this approach would be rolled out nationally;”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 3 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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 prison transfer service within a secure inpatient service to provide dedicated transfer and remission capacity.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Another example of good practice is the development of a prison transfer service within a secure inpatient service. This service focuses specifically on transfers from prison, enabling timely transfers and remission where appropriate to ensure that particular capacity is used exclusively for this patient group.”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 4 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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 report does not establish the extent to which delayed transfer contributed to the death.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I have noted the concerns raised in your report about the length of time it takes to transfer a prisoner to a secure hospital under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983¹ and the risk this poses to future deaths. It is not clear from the detail in the report as to the extent that this was a contributing factor in the death of Miss Walker. However, I acknowledge the evidence given at inquest in relation to this and the cause for concern of future deaths.”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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

    NHS England is responsible for commissioning prison healthcare and secure mental health beds, so it must respond in detail.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You issued your report to NHS England as well as the Department. NHS England is responsible for the commissioning of prison health care services and the commissioning of specialist mental health services, including secure adult mental health beds. It is therefore for NHS England to respond to you in detail. However, I am aware of, and hope you will be assured by, the work currently being undertaken by NHS England around improving access to mental health services, including secure inpatient care, for offenders with mental health difficulties.”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-Department-of-Health-and-Social-Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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 Mental Health Act sets no transfer deadline, and the proposed 14-day target was guidance rather than an accepted statutory requirement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The provisions of the MHA 1983 do not stipulate a timescale within which prisoner transfers from prison to mental health inpatient services must take place.”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    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

    Secondary mental health providers and CCGs hold responsibility for planning or commissioning relevant local mental health pathways and beds.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Under the HSCA 2012, NHS England has responsibility for the commissioning of healthcare in prisons and the commissioning of adult secure mental health beds, amongst other specialist mental health services. More recently NHS England has devolved responsibility to secondary MH providers in respect of managing budgets and planning for their local populations. These New Care Models (NCMs) comprise of a lead provider arrangement or a collaborative of providers who are responsible for planning the pathway for their local populations in terms of adult medium and low secure services. Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are responsible for the commissioning of other mental health services, including psychiatric intensive care units (PICU).”

    Source location

    2018-0396-Response-by-NHS-England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 May 2019

    Open published response
  4. Southampton and New Forest

    AI-generated summary

    Eleanor Valerie Fyfe BRABANT · 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 2 November 2017, Eleanor Brabant hanged herself while alone in a room at Trinity Ward, Antelope House, Southampton. She had a history of mental illness, and her behaviour and mental state had deteriorated after her compulsory detention was rescinded without a clear care plan in place. Concerns included the application and staff training relating to patient observations, safeguarding and reporting crimes involving vulnerable patients, use of Mental Health Act powers for informal patients, and involving families in care planning when consent had been withdrawn.

    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 ward nurses to use section 5(4) powers to prevent unsafe patient departure

    Wider context from the report

    “5.3 It was apparent that the nurses on the ward felt unable to use their powers under section 5(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to prevent patients from leaving the ward even when they had real concerns for the safety and welfare of that person and that they erroneously believed that informal patients were not detainable in such circumstances. The training they had received on the implementation of the Mental Health Act in relation to informal patients had not covered this aspect sufficiently. ”

    Source location

    Eleanor Valerie Fyfe BRABANT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. London Greater (East)

    AI-generated summary

    Joshua Knox-Hooke · 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

    Joshua Knox-Hooke, a 22-year-old man with psychosis and recent drug use, attended North Middlesex Hospital on 1 December 2014 after cutting his neck and wrist and saying he wanted to kill himself. He left before psychiatric assessment and was later found deceased, partly immersed in Danbury reservoir; the inquest concluded that he died from drowning. Concerns included failure to keep him within eyesight in accordance with hospital policy and wider issues around patients leaving before psychiatric assessment and the handling of the incident.

    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 staff awareness of nurses' holding power under Section 5.4 of the Mental Health Act

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The triage nurse who gave evidence during the course of the Inquest did not consider that it would be possible to make a patient to remain within the hospital for their own safety. She was unaware of the nurses holding power under Section 5.4 of the Mental Health Act. ”

    Source location

    Joshua Knox-Hooke · 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

    Explore whether a registered mental health nurse can be provided at short notice when high-risk patients cannot be assessed within the specified time.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust is confident that the actions outlined above, specifically the introduction of the MHTF, will ensure high risk mental health patients are appropriately identified and assessed in a timely manner so as to reduce the risk of such patients absconding prior to assessment in future. However, the Trust has also explored whether Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust are able to provide a registered mental health nurse, capable of exercising the holding powers afforded by section 5.4 of the mental health act, at short notice at times when it is not possible for a patient identified as being high risk of being appropriately assessed within the specified time. In instances where BEH MHT cannot provide sufficient RMN support to the ED, the ED attempts to book agency RMN staff at short notice.”

    Source location

    Knox-Hooke-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 1 August 2016

    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 hospital cannot exercise Mental Health Act holding powers because it does not provide mental health services or employ authorised registered mental health nurses.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust notes that you explicitly identified the fact that the triage nurse caring for Mr Knox-Hooke in ED was unaware of the nurses holding power under section 5.4 of the Mental Health Act, as a matter of concern. The Trust also notes, however, that the holding power afforded by the Mental Health Act is only to be exercised by a registered mental health nurse who has had appropriate training. The Trust is not a provider of mental health services and this service is provided on site by Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust. Therefore North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust does not employ registered mental health nurses with the authority to detain patients under section 5.4 of the mental health act.”

    Source location

    Knox-Hooke-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 1 August 2016

    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

    Mental health services and registered mental health nurse support are provided by Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In summary, Mr Knox-Hooke was able to leave the Emergency Department whilst he awaited psychiatric assessment at a time when he was not being observed. The Trust does not provide mental health services and these services are provided on site, in the Emergency Department, by Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust. In order to reduce the risk of high risk mental health patients leaving the department before they are assessed, the Trust has implemented action to reduce the waiting time for assessment for these patients. The Trust has also implemented a Mental Health Triage Form (MHTF) and prioritisation tool, a copy of which is enclosed. This tool has improved the identification of mental health risk factors at triage and enables high risk patient to be systematically identified so that their mental health assessment is prioritised.”

    Source location

    Knox-Hooke-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 1 August 2016

    Open published response
  6. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Dennis 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

    Dennis Bennett had dementia and was admitted under the Mental Health Act before receiving end-stage palliative care on a mental health ward, where he died of natural causes on 7 February 2016. Concerns included an urgent deprivation of liberty application made while he was already detained under Section 3, uncertainty about the application’s continuation, confusion about place-specific authorisations, and limited consideration of whether the application was needed while he was compliant and receiving palliative 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 distinguish urgent DOLS applications from detention under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The Trust staff completed an application for an urgent DOLS at the same time as the deceased was already subject to detention under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act. 2. There was a lack of understanding as to what occurred at the conclusion of the urgent application and conflicting evidence was heard from two employees of Trafford Council. 3. The decision to apply for a DOLS was initially made at a time when the decision was for him to be moved to nursing home care. Indeed the evidence provided by the family was that a DOLS application was necessary so that he could be moved to the nursing home. There appears to be a lack of understanding as to the fact that DOLS are place specific. 4. The deceased was then on end stage palliative care and entirely compliant with treatment there was little consideration as to why a DOLS was applied for as opposed to treating the deceased in his best interests. Whilst in this case the application did not impact on his care or treatment there is a concern that a lack of understanding and differing information may and could impact on other patients. ”

    Source location

    Dennis Bennett · 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

    Deliver bespoke Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training to senior clinical staff, including its relationship with the Mental Health Act and place-specific requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The use of DoLs is rare within the Moorside Unit and Bollin/Greenway Ward. In order to ensure staff have a good understanding of the DoLs process and its relationship to the Mental Health Act senior clinical staff will be provided with further bespoke training about DoLs which will incorporate the concerns you raise.”

    Source location

    Dennis-Bennett-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 April 2016

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Require all staff to complete a mandatory Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training package and monitor completion through the ward manager.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I can confirm that in order to ensure all staff have an increased knowledge about DoLs the staff group have been asked to complete a DoLs training package which includes this information. The completion of this training is mandatory and will be monitored by the ward manager.”

    Source location

    Dennis-Bennett-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 April 2016

    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 end-of-life care and consider the most appropriate legal framework for depriving a patient of liberty.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust’s Clinical Improvement Lead Nurse for Dementia, Older People and Carers Services is currently undertaking a review of end of life care. She has been asked to build into the review consideration of the most appropriate legal framework to use.”

    Source location

    Dennis-Bennett-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 April 2016

    Open published response
  7. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Matthew Marc GROOM · 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

    Matthew Marc Groom stood in front of a lorry after spending seven hours in the emergency unit of Whittington Hospital, where he was seen by emergency medicine and mental health staff. Concerns included delays in his mental health assessment, prescribed diazepam not being administered, inadequate planning for his possible departure, failure to seek urgent hospital security assistance, and incomplete communication with police.

    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 seek urgent hospital security assistance when detention under the Mental Health Act is considered necessary

    Wider context from the report

    “4. When Matt did leave the department, the assessing doctor asked the nurse to call the police, but neither doctor nor nurse considered seeking urgent assistance from hospital security, given that they were by now both of the view that he would probably now have to be detained under section of the Mental Health Act. ”

    Source location

    Matthew Marc GROOM · 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

    Prepare a joint emergency-department framework and reference document covering risk assessment, capacity, security, observation, documentation and inter-service communication when patients leave.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Improvement in response to Concern To improve the reliability of assessments made by the Whittington and Camden and Islington frontline staff to consider and plan what action to take should a patient suddenly decide to leave, both organisations are jointly preparing a joint framework and reference document that will be used in the ED to outline and further reinforce clear steps with regard to:”

    Source location

    Matthew-Groom-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 12 November 2015

    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

    Prepare a joint emergency-department framework and reference document covering risk, capacity, security, observation, documentation and inter-service communication when patients may leave.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Both Trusts have committed to improving staff awareness of their legal duties, what the options are associated with the various circumstances and clinical contingency planning in line with legal options. These are detailed under point 4.”

    Source location

    2015-0503-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 November 2015

    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

    Informal patients cannot lawfully be prevented from leaving without sufficient grounds for detention or proportionate physical intervention.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Individuals who have attended the ED voluntarily are informal patients and are not subject to any form of legal detention such as the Mental Health Act. For informal patients staff may try and persuade patients not to leave, but cannot in any manner prevent them leaving. A general duty of care can be applied in circumstances where someone is actively violent or is actively trying to hurt themselves or others, and then a physical intervention can be applied by NHS staff. This was not the case for Mr Groom.”

    Source location

    Matthew-Groom-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 November 2015

    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 patient did not display behaviour indicating immediate risk, requiring detention, restraint, or an active police search.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Mental Health Act enables appropriately trained staff to deprive someone of their liberty and enforce treatment; rightly this assessment requires a high threshold to be met. Alongside this the assessors have to consider the persons capacity to make this decision. Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust is satisfied that Mr Groom did not display behaviour that was sufficiently concerning that it required Mr Groom to be immediately detained under the Mental Health Act or any other Act.”

    Source location

    Matthew-Groom-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 November 2015

    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 patient was not considered an immediate risk requiring detention, restraint, or an active police search.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Mental Health Act enables appropriately trained staff to deprive someone of their liberty and enforce treatment; rightly this assessment requires a high threshold to be met. Alongside this assessment, staff have to consider the person’s capacity to make this decision. Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust is satisfied that Mr Groom did not display behaviour that was sufficiently concerning that it required Mr Groom to be immediately detained under the Mental Health Act or any other Act.”

    Source location

    2015-0503-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 November 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026