Recurring concern

Failure to reliably develop and review risk-reduction plans

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 21 Aug 2013•Latest report 2 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of the risk-reduction or safety-planning process where a required plan is missing, not implemented, not assessed for appropriateness, or changed or ended without the risk review needed to maintain effective protection.

Not included

  • Excludes generic risk-assessment failures where no risk-reduction or safety plan is involved.
  • Excludes failures to implement unrelated organisational action plans, audit recommendations or post-incident actions.
  • Excludes failures of a separately named hazard-specific or end-to-end safety system where risk planning is only an incidental component.
  • Excludes clinical or operational outcomes where no deficiency in developing, reviewing or maintaining a risk-reduction plan is identified.
Reports
48

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
50

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
80

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department of Health and Social Care6
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust4
NHS England4
East London NHS Foundation Trust3
Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust3
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust2
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust2
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust2
ADAPT, Bexley Locality Community Mental Health Team1
Adept Care Homes1
All family members1
Avery Healthcare Group1
Barts Health NHS Trust1
Beechwood Lodge1
Bexley ADAPT Service1

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. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Nicholas James STOUT · 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

    Nicholas “Nicky” Stout died at Darlington Memorial Hospital on 26 July 2021 after consuming a large quantity of cocaine, with acute cocaine toxicity and coronary artery atheroma recorded as factors. The report raised concerns about delays in mental health crisis assessment, incomplete crisis-team triage tools, safeguarding referrals for children, and the absence or incomplete use of safety plans.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to complete Safety Plans in all cases

    Wider context from the report

    “4. I was told in evidence that a Safety Plan which is complied with input from the patient, their families and practitioners did not exist in Mr STOUT's case. I was told it is crucial document for identifying risks and ways to mitigate them. I was also told work was commenced by your organisation in December 2020 to ensure full and complete compliance with this requirement, but I was not reassured there was such compliance with the completion of Safety Plans in all cases at this time. ”

    Source location

    Nicholas James STOUT · 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 additional training on completing safety summaries and safety plans to crisis staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In evidence, ████████ confirmed that work had been undertaken by the Trust to ensure that safety plans were completed. ████████ indicated that a monthly audit was in place to check compliance with the completion of safety plans and summaries.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Check and discuss every patient’s safety summary and safety plan during daily Crisis Team huddles, assigning required updates.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As part of the Crisis Team’s daily huddle, every patient’s care is discussed. As part of the huddle safety summaries and safety plans are checked and discussed as a multi-disciplinary team. Any changes or updates that are required are identified and staff are tasked to complete these.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide regular bespoke safety-summary and safety-plan training, including training for new team members.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In both teams, bespoke safety summary and safety plan training, that is supplementary to mandatory harm minimisation training, is delivered and allows for exploration of specific risks and scenarios related to their service provision. This training is a regular offer within the teams and is completed as part of the induction of new staff into the team.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct monthly QA5 audits of safety-summary and safety-plan quality, risk mitigation documentation, and completion, with corrective action and clinical supervision.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Within the Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) Team, staff have regular caseload supervision which looks at patient care and safety management documents such as the safety summary and safety plan. Results from QA5 audits are fed back to staff in monthly team meetings. Audit outcomes are reviewed through service and speciality governance meetings and escalated through to Care Group Boards. A function of these groups is also to develop and monitor improvement plans and actions for areas where audit compliance falls below the expected standard.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement monthly caseload-management supervision supported by an electronic caseload dashboard and review of essential care documents.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a Trust we recognise that staff need support in managing their caseload and an integral part of this is effective caseload management supervision. In addition, caseload oversight follows the patient pathway so that our response remains central to a patient’s need, whilst also ensuring the right staff have the right skills to offer at the right time to promote recovery. For these reasons the Trust implemented a new Caseload Management Supervision Policy in January 2023 following a successful pilot in the last quarter of 2022. This policy ensures that monthly caseload supervision is completed, the use of an electronic caseload dashboard to facilitate and highlight areas of supervision and time to consider the quality of essential care documents.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Apply the national triage tool to new or otherwise eligible crisis-service patients and develop interim safety plans with patients and carers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For all new patients and those individuals not open to other secondary mental health services, the UK national triage tool is undertaken to initially triage and assess the patient and to agree the priority of assessment. This is in line with national standards set out by NHS England. The clinician carrying out the triage assessment will develop a safety plan, in discussion with the patient and their family/carer, to ensure the patient is safely supported until the crisis assessment takes place. If an immediate response is required due to an imminent safety or wellbeing concern this would be requested through 999 emergency services in line with national guidance.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust 2
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide additional training for crisis staff on completing safety summaries and safety plans.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In evidence, ████████ confirmed that work had been undertaken by the Trust to ensure that safety plans were completed. ████████ indicated that a monthly audit was in place to check compliance with completion of safety plans and summaries.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust 2
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Check and discuss every patient’s safety summary and safety plan during daily Crisis Team huddles, assigning staff to complete required updates.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As part of the Crisis Team’s daily huddle, every patient’s care is discussed. As part of the huddle safety summaries and safety plans are checked and discussed as a multi-disciplinary team. Any changes or updates that are required are identified and staff are tasked to complete these.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust 2
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Deliver regular bespoke safety-summary and safety-plan training, including training during induction for new team staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In both teams, bespoke safety summary and safety plan training, that is supplementary to mandatory harm minimisation training, is delivered and allows for exploration of specific risks and scenarios related to their service provision. This training is a regular offer within the teams and is completed as part of the induction of new staff into the team.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust 2
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct monthly QA5 audits of safety-summary and safety-plan quality, risk mitigation documentation and completion, with corrective action and clinical supervision where needed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Monthly QA5 audits are conducted in accordance with the Trust Quality Assurance schedule. The tool asks questions about the quality of the safety summary and if it reflects the patient’s current level of risk. The tool also reviews if it is documented appropriately as to how these risks will be mitigated and managed within the safety plan. Audits continue to show sustained improvement in the completion of safety summaries and safety plans including the quality of these documents. They allow an opportunity for timely corrective actions where required and live supervision for clinicians.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust 2
    Page 5 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Immediate emergency responses are requested through 999 emergency services in line with national guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For all new patients and those individuals not open to other secondary mental health services, the UK national triage tool is undertaken to initially triage and assess the patient and to agree the priority of assessment. This is in line with national standards set out by NHS England. The clinician carrying out the triage assessment will develop a safety plan, in discussion with the patient and their family/carer, to ensure the patient is safely supported until the crisis assessment takes place. If an immediate response is required due to an imminent safety or wellbeing concern this would be requested through 999 emergency services in line with national guidance.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust 2
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 September 2023

    Open published response
  2. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Evelina Vilkiene · 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

    Evelina Vilkiene, who was receiving mental health services, was found hanging at her home on 7 June 2022 and was pronounced dead at the scene. The report identified concerns about the absence of detailed risk assessments and jointly agreed risk-management plans during care transitions and when clonazepam was reduced, as well as the lack of subsequent care-coordinator reviews.

    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 establish a risk management plan when weaning Clonazepam medication

    Wider context from the report

    “2. On the 26th May 2022 when a decision was made to wean Evelina from the Clonazepam medication there was no detailed risk assessment or risk management plan. It was agreed in evidence that there was an increased risk to self at this time. No additional steps were put in place to ensure insofar as possible, that Evelina was kept safe. ”

    Source location

    Evelina Vilkiene · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Sharon Elizabeth Langley · 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

    Sharon Elizabeth Langley, an inpatient with Severe Depressive Disorder and Psychosis, died by immersion in water while unsupervised in an assisted bathroom at Princess Alexandra Hospital on 10 August 2019. The principal concerns included failures in the immediate emergency response, inadequate communication and coordination, shortcomings in bathroom and high-risk-area safety measures, confusion about bath-plug controls, unreliable investigation and learning processes, and inadequate record keeping and risk 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

    Incomplete recording of multidisciplinary decisions, observation rationale and risk-management plans

    Wider context from the report

    “(8) Quality of record keeping was not deemed to be appropriate by senior staff during evidence: a. Significant examples of cut and paste including out-of-date risk information at all grades of ward staff, and b. omissions in multi-disciplinary decision-making and risk of self-harm with no rationale for the level of observations set for the patient and a plan for how risks should be managed ”

    Source location

    Sharon Elizabeth Langley · 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

    Roll out electronic observations across the Trust while maintaining review and assurance of observation records and multidisciplinary observation-level decisions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- In relation to completion of engagement and supportive observation records, local procedure is in place whereby the observation is completed by the assigned staff member in full. The Nurse in Charge at the end of the shift will sign the observations chart off. These are checked by the ward manager for assurance they’ve been completed accurately and in full before being uploaded to the electronic clinical records system. EPUT has piloted the use of electronic observations (e-obs) which is now being rolled out across the Trust. Observation levels are reviewed regularly by the MDT and documented within the care review documentation.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 7 · response
    Published 7 March 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Undertake horizon scanning on multidisciplinary-team communication and patient-risk management, then review findings and take required actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- The Trust is currently undertaking horizon scanning relating to MDT communication (including MDT meetings where individual patient risk is discussed and management plans agreed), which is one of EPUT’s nine medium to long term continuous improvement areas. The horizon scan tool is part of the NHS Patient Safety Incident Response Framework toolkit and supports health and social care teams to have a forward look at potential, or current, safety themes and issues. The horizon scanning tool uses the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework to structure conversations about work as done and emerging patient and staff safety risks. The findings will be reviewed and actions taken as required.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 7 · response
    Published 7 March 2023

    Open published response
  4. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Ania Sohail · 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

    Ania Sohail collapsed on 19 June 2021 after ingesting Propranolol tablets she had obtained from multiple online pharmacies and died later that day from Propranolol toxicity. The principal concerns included the lack of integrated information sharing between online pharmacies and prescribers, ineffective and poorly documented searches, inadequate post-leave assessment and care planning, and insufficiently auditable observation records.

    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 Recovery and Discharge Plans to address online medication procurement risks

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The Recovery & Discharge Plans did not address the risks associated with Ania’s procurement of Propranolol from on-line pharmacies. The evidence was that an update of the Recovery & Discharge Plan involved members of nursing staff simply adding a note that the overdoses had taken place. The Plan did not show that any meaningful thought had been given to addressing the particular risk associated with the procurement of on-line medication. ”

    Source location

    Ania Sohail · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. Gwent

    AI-generated summary

    Mary Doreen White · 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

    Mary Doreen White was admitted to hospital in April 2021 and suffered three falls while an inpatient, including fractures requiring surgery. Her condition deteriorated while recovering from surgery, and she died from a chest infection, with frailty of old age also recorded. Concerns included staffing shortages, difficulties providing required enhanced observation on the ward, and the absence of a documented and communicated plan for managing patients requiring Level 4 enhanced care in that setting.

    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 documented contingency plan for managing patients when staffing shortages prevent their assessed level of care

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Despite requesting additional nursing staff, the Bargoed ward was short-staffed when Mrs White fell. There did not appear to be any documented plan or procedure in place for how patients would be safely managed when it was not possible (because of staff shortage) to carry out the level of care for individual patients that they had been assessed as requiring. ”

    Source location

    Mary Doreen White · 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

    Introduce the Safecare Programme across wards covered by section 25B of the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Furthermore, the Health Board are introducing the Safecare Programme on all wards under section 25B of the NSLWA. Safecare is a national programme currently being rolled out across all Health Boards in Wales. It matches staffing levels to patient acuity, providing control and assurance from bedside to board. It is designed to increase patient safety while maintaining efficiency and enables informed decisions to be taken at various levels of management.”

    Source location

    Response from Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 February 2023

    Open published response
  6. North Yorkshire and York including North Yorkshire Western District

    AI-generated summary

    Zoe Emma ZAREMBA · 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

    Zoe Emma ZAREMBA, who had a history of repeated self-harm and suicide attempts, ingested an unknown quantity of a substance after going missing from home and was found unresponsive on 21 June 2020; her death was established as resulting from the ingestion. The report identified concerns about clinicians’ failure to understand and adapt care to her autism, the unsubstantiated attribution of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, inadequate coordinated mental health support, and the absence of effective care planning and risk assessment.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide a care coordinator and effective care plan

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence indicated: 1 Zoe was diagnosed at age 16 years as being autistic by CAMHS with a designation of Asperger’s Syndrome. Her medical records recorded that. 2 In or about 2016 she was wrongly attributed by the Mental Health Service, TEWV, clinicians - who knew of her autism -as undergoing Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder (“EUPD”). 3 That attribution was not formally diagnosed, and not discussed with Zoe who found out by chance when looking at her records. She continued to be regarded and treated as if she was experiencing that condition and clinicians would not adapt to her distress caused by that attribution. There was inertia and excessive delay (to May 2020) in removing reference to EUPD which had been discounted in October 2018 all of which added to her distress. These actions and inactions destroyed her relationship with community mental health clinicians and she did not trust them enough to try to restore any effective care relationship. 4 She suffered repeated trauma derived from her autistic condition revisiting the causes of her distress which she re-experienced time and again with ‘film reel’ recollection. That trauma was again not understood. 5 In short, her autism (and thus risk assessment) was misunderstood by the clinicians tasked to keep her safe. 6 TEWV’s provision for cares of autistic conditions were underdeveloped, reflecting national want of provision, to include:- A no multidisciplinary clinical assessment and formulation addressed her autism; B no reasonable adjustments were then made in terms of her sensory and environmental needs in any timely fashion, or at all; C no person centred (thus autism centred) holistic plan was developed to work in partnership with Zoe that took account of her autism, and her gender. As the evidence revealed one “cannot uncouple autism and other psychological/psychiatric experiences”. Instead, she withdrew from engagement with TEWV community health clinicians. D there was no local provision within TEWV for specialist autism assessment and adapted psychological therapy. Commissioned providers of these essential cares were outwith TEWV, requiring specific Funding Request (which was granted) for a course of assessment and therapy. Those providers did not offer statutory acute mental health services support, including out of hours/crisis support. TEWV did not provide what the commissioning providers were supplying. There was a want of effective communications between these ‘teams’ not least as patient data was not accessible by one to the others electronic records (patient consent permitting) and the fact of disengagement. There was a sense of ‘silo’ working, militating against partnership working, that encouraged unfavourably the undesirable “uncoupling” of experiences; E statistical evidence indicated that autistic individuals are more at risk of suicide than those with no neurodevelopmental condition, and females at greater risk than their male counterparts; F there was a clinical (but not measured) experience that more patients were presenting to the statutory service with autistic conditions and, it follows, more patients would be at risk of suicide; G from 2016 to her death, Zoe was detained under ss 2/3 MHA 1983 17 times and presented to A and E around 37 times with evident self harm and apparent attempts on her life. She repeated high risk behaviours. She had no Care Co-ordinator nor effective Care Plan (which ought to have been in place) because she had not engaged with TEWV community services; H Zoe lurched from crisis to crisis remaining at high risk to her own safety; she died because she could no longer cope with the sense of injustice caused by others that overwhelmed her thinking. She felt she was not being listened to by community mental health services. Her therapy from outside providers - which was proving helpful to her - was disrupted by COVID-19 limitations on face to face consultations; Both locally, including regional, but also nationally the evidence revealed a number of serious issues that require urgent and immediate action to support autistic people well, not just from a sensory and environmental basis (which TEWV have started to improve albeit from a low baseline according to the evidence received). Urgent solutions are required to prevent future deaths of autistic patients especially with mental health needs. ”

    Source location

    Zoe Emma ZAREMBA · 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

    Require autism-informed care, treatment, safety summaries and safety plans within multidisciplinary team processes, including patient and advocate involvement where possible.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To assist staff in practically achieving this goal, additional measures have been introduced into the MDT process to ensure that, where a patient has a diagnosis of autism, their care, treatment, safety summary and safety plan take that diagnosis into account and provide a comprehensive assessment of need. MDT formulation now includes patients and their advocates, wherever possible, in order to ensure honest and transparent communication when reaching a diagnosis.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (21 June)
    Page 4 · response
    Published 27 April 2022

    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 embed an autism-informed care-planning process with evaluation and sustainability work for person-centred holistic plans.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a trust we offer a full day Understanding Autism training for both clinical and non-clinical staff, which has a focus on developing holistic plans of care for autistic people and reflects diagnosis and associated risks and needs. This is consolidated through the offering of individual autism supervision and consultation for clinical staff. The utilisation of supervision and consultation has increased over the last twelve months ensuring that care plans consider the needs of the autistic patient. Work is actively taking place to ensure that Autistic people’s needs can be reflected within the new care planning process.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (21 June)
    Page 5 · response
    Published 27 April 2022

    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 the action plan requiring flexible, cross-service decisions to meet individual patient needs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There has been a previous external review of Zoe’s care that considers this point and a subsequent action plan which was developed with Mrs Zaremba. These identified as an action that community mental health team leaders need to make flexible decisions based on an individual needs which may need to cross services and traditional ways of working. This may mean that it’s necessary to move away from usual ways of working in relation to allocation of a care coordinator or where care is delivered to ensure that all efforts are made to collaboratively meet patient needs.”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (21 June)
    Page 7 · response
    Published 27 April 2022

    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

    Adopt nationally recommended collaborative care planning using holistic, individualised recovery plans based on the DIALOG model.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are adopting the nationally recommended changes to care planning to ensure that this is more collaborative and focussed on holistic needs with individualised recovery plans based on the DIALOG model. Increasingly, across the system, we ████████ ████████”

    Source location

    Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (21 June)
    Page 7 · response
    Published 27 April 2022

    Open published response
  7. Dorset

    AI-generated summary

    Alexander Charles George Tostevin · 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

    Corporal Alexander Charles George Tostevin died on 18 March 2018 after a significant deterioration in his mental health and while under the care of the Royal Navy Department of Community Mental Health and Welfare Team. A risk management email containing significant disclosures was not seen until the following week, resulting in a missed opportunity to reassess his risk before the weekend. The concerns included the lack of independence of the DCMH, the primacy of its view in multidisciplinary risk assessments, and the absence of a composite risk assessment and care plan.

    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

    Absence of a composite risk assessment and care plan

    Wider context from the report

    “iii. Where there is no composite risk assessment and care plan document that draws together all the relevant information for a patient and identifies the plan in place at any given time, there is a risk that key information and risk factors are missed, which is less likely if there is a composite document in addition to the clinical records. ”

    Source location

    Alexander Charles George Tostevin · 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

    Apply AGAI 110 Vulnerability Risk Management within the Unit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Societal stigma regarding mental health issues has reduced in recent years but does endure. This is a recognised risk within service communities with regards to the management of vulnerability. Cpl Tostevin’s Unit has now adopted the Army General Administrative Instruction (AGAI) 110 – Vulnerability Risk Management (VRM)⁵, which acknowledges the ongoing challenges, stating:”

    Source location

    2021-0407-Response-from-Ministry-of-Defence_Published
    Page 4 · response
    Published 7 December 2021

    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

    Use holistic composite Care Assessment Plans and VRMIS to consolidate risk information, update carers and notify them of changes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In line with AGAI 110, composite CAP documents based on a holistic assessment of risk are now in place within Cpl Tostevin’s Unit. The Case Conferences continue to employ a multi-disciplinary approach to managing personnel deemed to be at risk, with carers’ meetings being conducted fortnightly. Meeting attendees now feed into a collaborative tool to manage vulnerable personnel, which is hosted on the Vulnerability Risk Management Information System (VRMIS).”

    Source location

    2021-0407-Response-from-Ministry-of-Defence_Published
    Page 6 · response
    Published 7 December 2021

    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

    Existing Chain of Command-led multidisciplinary processes and disagreement protocols provide holistic risk management without adopting a MARM or MARAC model.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “While each Service has its own policies and frameworks to manage its vulnerable personnel, every case across Defence is Chain of Command led and supported, as appropriate, by welfare agencies, pastoral support and healthcare professionals (including DCMH). Cpl Tostevin’s Unit applies the Army’s Vulnerability Risk Management (VRM) Framework, which states:”

    Source location

    2021-0407-Response-from-Ministry-of-Defence_Published
    Page 5 · response
    Published 7 December 2021

    Open published response
  8. Newcastle upon Tyne

    AI-generated summary

    Neil James STEWART · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Neil James Stewart travelled to Amsterdam in November 2017 and, on 18 November 2017, entered the Noordzeekanaal after jumping from a party boat; his body was recovered on 3 December 2017. The concerns addressed written safety policies and warnings for guests, venue-specific risks, and clarity about safety responsibilities between entertainment providers and venue organisers.

    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 written safety policy covering guest protection, conduct expectations and event risks

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Create and adopt a written safety policy/protocol in which you clearly document the steps you will put in place to protect your guests, your expectation of them and their conduct and a clear warning of the risks associated with the events they may attend ”

    Source location

    Neil James STEWART · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  9. West Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    Pathushan Sutharsan · 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 22 July 2020, Pathushan Sutharsan fell from his bicycle while approaching the junction of the Downs Link and the A281 in West Sussex and was struck by a Heavy Goods Vehicle. The report identified inadequate warning signage and no physical barrier at the junction, which continued to pose a significant risk to cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians despite improvements made after his death.

    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 establish definitive plans to address junction safety issues

    Wider context from the report

    “Whilst it was accepted that West Sussex County Council had, following Pathushan’s death, made significant improvements to the junction between the Downs link and the A281 evidence was heard from a number of different organisations (speaking on behalf of all the different users of the Downs link) that the junction in question still posed a substantial risk for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians alike. This junction is the only part of the Downs link that crosses a major A-road where there is no alternative safe crossing, a Pegasus crossing or bridge. Evidence was heard that there is no pavement running alongside the A281 and therefore this causes poor sight lines for horse riders and, in some circumstances, cyclists who have to put their horse’s head or part of their bike out onto the road before they can see oncoming traffic. It is understood that WSCC has identified a need to address the issues at this junction and has undertaken (or is about to undertake a feasibility study) but it appears that at this stage there are no definitive plans in place to take this forward. Therefore the significant risk to the users of this junction remains. The Downs link is actively promoted as a recreational activity by West Sussex County Council. ”

    Source location

    Pathushan Sutharsan · 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

    Undertake a feasibility study and options appraisal for improving the crossing point, including bridge and traffic-light-controlled crossing options.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A feasibility study looking into ways to improve the crossing point is currently being undertaken by the authority’s term consultant, WSP. An options appraisal report will be completed by October 2021. The study is primarily focused on, but not limited to, the options for a bridge or traffic light controlled road crossing. If the report determines that there are appropriate, technically feasible solutions, the preferred option will be progressed through the WSC’s capital governance procedures, either as a project to be taken forward in the Local Transport Investment Programme or as a major scheme. In either case a full business case will be developed and the scheme assessed against the County Council’s objectives and priorities for potential inclusion in a future capital programme.”

    Source location

    2021-0193-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 June 2021

    Open published response
  10. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    KENNETH SMITH · 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

    Kenneth Smith, who had cognitive impairment and was at high risk of falls, died on 9 November 2020 after falling at a care home and developing acute-on-chronic subdural haematomas. The report raised concerns about reducing his supervision, failing to set a review date, inadequate escalation of care after further falls, and insufficient consideration of medication and mental-health factors in assessing his falls risk.

    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 specify a date for future review

    Wider context from the report

    “After a proposed re-assessment of the falls risk posed by the deceased on the 22nd of October 2020 the 14-day period expired on the 22nd and 29th of October established that the deceased was to suffer 6 falls between the 22nd and 29th of October 2020. Two of these falls took place on the 22nd of October 2020 – the same date of the reduction in the level of care being offered. The evidence from the care home indicated that there was no date that had been given for a future review. It was also accepted that there was no action taken to consider whether any fall or falls resulted in the Accident Record including no action taken on the 29th of October 2020 when the deceased suffered two falls, resulting in tears and a head injury. Additionally, the evidence established that on release from hospital to the care home on the 6th of October 2020, the discharge clinicians had stopped the prescription of Trazodone due to its known sedative qualities. There was no evidence of this (as part of the falls risk assessment) being taken into account by carers adequately, or at all. Care staff had only escalated concerns over the deceased's progressive agitation to a general practitioner on 30th of October 2020. This had resulted in a referral to the Older Persons' Mental Health Team. There was no evidence as to why further advice from a mental health practitioner was not sought earlier, or as part of the risk assessment on the 22nd of October 2020. The nature and quality of the care received by the deceased between the 22nd and 31st of October 2020 reveal the following concerns: 1. The decision to reduce the level of supervision was suboptimal, incorrect and unlawful. 2. The failure to consider and specify a review date; 3. The lack of appropriate scaling up of care to meet identified problems or issues with the reduced level of care, with no prompt to act on urgent review. 4. Care plan guidance, whilst not triggered, was serious or untoward incidents review by the care home, the CCG, or local authority; ”

    Source location

    KENNETH SMITH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026