Recurring concern

Unsafe clinical responsibility for mental health leave and detention decisions

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 24 May 2017•Latest report 10 Mar 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the dedicated decision process for granting, changing or rescinding mental health patient leave, detention or related restrictions where responsibility is unclear or held by inappropriate personnel, responsible clinicians lack suitable experience or assessment, or non-clinical pressures or staff override clinically accountable decision-making.

Not included

  • Excludes general clinical staffing, training or bed-capacity concerns unless they directly affect responsibility or decision-making for mental health leave or detention.
  • Excludes ordinary Mental Health Act assessment, Tribunal, discharge or care-planning failures where leave or detention decision responsibility is not the unsafe condition.
  • Excludes decisions made by appropriately experienced responsible clinicians where the concern is only disagreement with the clinical judgment.
  • Excludes generic organisational accountability or non-clinical influence concerns outside mental health leave or detention decisions.
Reports
5

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
7

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2017–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
17

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.

Alternative Futures Group Limited1
Department of Health and Social Care1
Epsom Hospital1
Health and Care Professions Council1
Health Services Safety Investigations Body1
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust1
NHS South West London Integrated Care Board1
North London NHS Foundation Trust1
South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust1
South West Yorkshire Partnership Teaching NHS Foundation Trust1
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust1
Whittington Health NHS Trust1

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. Cheshire

    AI-generated summary

    Ruariri Thomas 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

    Ruariri Thomas Stewart, aged 29, died from fatal cocaine toxicity at Weaver Lodge Independent Hospital on 31 July 2025 after a period of unescorted leave during which he probably obtained cocaine. The report identifies concerns about failures in documentation, communication, information sharing, leave decision-making, substance-misuse management, record keeping, and the quality of post-incident investigation.

    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 document and formalise leave reinstatement decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “4. When the responsible clinician was away for an extended period, leave was managed by a non s12 doctor. There is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of the decision making process by that doctor to reinstate leave as decisions were made outside the formal s17 MHA framework. ”

    Source location

    Ruariri Thomas STEWART · 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

    Leave management by a non-s12 doctor during responsible-clinician absence

    Wider context from the report

    “4. When the responsible clinician was away for an extended period, leave was managed by a non s12 doctor. There is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of the decision making process by that doctor to reinstate leave as decisions were made outside the formal s17 MHA framework. ”

    Source location

    Ruariri Thomas STEWART · 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

    Document all clinical and Mental Health Act decisions in patient files, the DSR system and relevant meeting minutes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• All clinical decision-making, including that relating to MHA matters, is now documented within each patients’ file, both within the DSR system as well as additionally in any relevant minutes – for example within MDT meeting minutes, where a clinical decision has been taken during the course of that meeting.”

    Source location

    Response from Alternative Futures Group
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 March 2026

    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

    Reissue section 17 guidance and use separate escorted/emergency and unescorted leave forms for each patient.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Specifically in respect of s.17 MHA decision-making, AFG has updated and reissued to staff guidance as to the process to be followed. In addition, AFG has moved to a system of two leave forms for each patient: one that covers all escorted and emergency arrangements; and a second which covers unescorted leave, to minimise the impact to restriction and recovery.”

    Source location

    Response from Alternative Futures Group
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 March 2026

    Open published response
  2. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Tracey Ostler · 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

    Tracey Ostler, who had severe Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder and a history of self-harm and overdoses, took an overdose and cut her wrists on 12 June 2023. After paramedics attended her home on 16 June following a further overdose, they left her there after deciding she had capacity to refuse hospital treatment; she was later found unconscious and died in hospital on 18 June 2023. The principal concerns were inadequate capacity assessment and clinical consultation, failures to share information and coordinate mental-health and ambulance care, the absence of multi-agency safety planning, and insufficient psychiatric hospital beds.

    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 lawful Mental Health Act detention safeguards and Responsible Clinician oversight

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”

    Source location

    Tracey Ostler · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 5 · 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 the Mind and Body Provider Collaborative improvement programme with acute care partners, using clinical, escalation and risk-management frameworks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Further improvement work continues through the Mind and Body Provider Collaborative, which is a programme of work chaired by our Chief Nursing Officer and undertaken with our acute care partners.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 August 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

    Engage stakeholders to clarify how the current legal framework applies to holding patients in A&E and identify solutions to the reported problems.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We accept that there may be a need to provide greater clarity on what powers are available to health professionals to hold someone in A&E, until an assessment can be completed. We will engage further to understand how the current legal framework is applied and identify solutions to the problems raised. We will seek to provide further guidance on the existing legal framework and the handover protocol between health and police in the next revision of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 August 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 further guidance on the legal framework and handover protocol in the next revision of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We accept that there may be a need to provide greater clarity on what powers are available to health professionals to hold someone in A&E, until an assessment can be completed. We will engage further to understand how the current legal framework is applied and identify solutions to the problems raised. We will seek to provide further guidance on the existing legal framework and the handover protocol between health and police in the next revision of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.”

    Source location

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

    Engage further to understand application of the current legal framework and identify solutions to unlawful detention risks in A&E.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We accept that there may be a need to provide greater clarity on what powers are available to health professionals to hold someone in A&E, until an assessment can be completed. We will engage further to understand how the current legal framework is applied and identify solutions to the problems raised. We will seek to provide further guidance on the existing legal framework and the handover protocol between health and police in the next revision of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 August 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 further guidance on the legal framework and health-police handover protocol in the next revision of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We accept that there may be a need to provide greater clarity on what powers are available to health professionals to hold someone in A&E, until an assessment can be completed. We will engage further to understand how the current legal framework is applied and identify solutions to the problems raised. We will seek to provide further guidance on the existing legal framework and the handover protocol between health and police in the next revision of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Health and Social 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 acute hospital’s management is responsible for deciding whether to detain a patient to an acute hospital bed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A person can only be detained once admitted to an acute hospital bed. While the Trust’s position is that steps should be taken to ensure an appropriate legal framework, the decision to detain to an acute hospital bed lies with the management of the acute hospital. This is not an issue unique to Surrey; one of the proposed amendments to the Mental Health Bill is to allow people to be detained in emergency departments in recognition of the current gap in legislation.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
    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

    Providing mental health care for patients without physical health needs is outside the Trust’s commissioned remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust is an acute trust, offering inpatient physical healthcare services at Epsom Hospital and St Helier Hospital. For patients within our locality, mental health services are provided by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘SABP’). Whilst we are not commissioned to provide care for patients who do not have physical health needs, we acknowledge and are mindful of the situation that is faced across the country where the demand for mental health services far exceeds the availability. We work collaboratively with our partners in SABP to provide care for patients whilst they remain in the Trust. I welcome the opportunity to respond to your concerns on behalf of the Trust.”

    Source location

    Response from Epsom General Hospital
    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

    Surrey and Borders Partnership provides local mental health services, while NHS Surrey Heartlands ICB commissions those services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS Surrey Heartlands ICB (‘the ICB’) is the responsible ICB for the geographical area in which the Trust sits. It is responsible for commissioning the mental health care provision for the population within its geographical area.”

    Source location

    Response from Epsom General Hospital
    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

    Clinical matters fall outside the commissioning organisation’s remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you may be aware, as a commissioning organisation, the ICB can only comment on the commissioning and oversight of the relevant services. We cannot comment on clinical matters, which are for the relevant Trusts. Our response to the relevant sections of the report are set out below.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS South West London Integrated Care Board
    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

    Clinical matters are the responsibility of the relevant Trusts.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you may be aware, as a commissioning organisation, the ICB can only comment on the commissioning and oversight of the relevant services. We cannot comment on clinical matters, which are for the relevant Trusts. Our response to the relevant sections of the report are set out below.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS South West London Integrated Care Board
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 August 2025

    Open published response
  3. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Neil Peter Bastock · 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 Peter Bastock, who had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and previous suicide attempts and self-harm, died by suicide on 20 September 2021. The report raises concerns about rescinding his detention without family involvement or a formal capacity assessment, inadequate care planning and continuity, failures to respond to warning signs after he became a voluntary patient, and failure to notify police when he left the ward.

    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 undertake a formalised mental capacity assessment before section rescission decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The decision to rescind the section on 17.09.2020 was made: a. by a responsible clinician who had been in this role for only two weeks. b. his family were not involved in the decision at all and only became aware of it after it had been made. c. no formalised assessment of his mental capacity was made prior to the decisions. d. his care plan had not been updated. e. the pressure on bed availability in the Newsam Centre may have influenced the decision. ”

    Source location

    Neil Peter Bastock · 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

    Use of a responsible clinician with insufficient role experience for section rescission decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The decision to rescind the section on 17.09.2020 was made: a. by a responsible clinician who had been in this role for only two weeks. b. his family were not involved in the decision at all and only became aware of it after it had been made. c. no formalised assessment of his mental capacity was made prior to the decisions. d. his care plan had not been updated. e. the pressure on bed availability in the Newsam Centre may have influenced the decision. ”

    Source location

    Neil Peter Bastock · 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

    Review medical staff training provision on mental capacity assessments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To support an improvement in relation to this area, the Trust’s Head of Mental Health Legislation, in conjunction with the Medical Director, will carry out a review of the current training provision for medical staff in relation to mental capacity assessments.”

    Source location

    2021-0365-Response-from-Leeds-and-York-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 November 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

    Undertake a Trust-wide audit of mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions, including possible detention-rescission decisions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In January 2022, a Trust-wide audit relating to mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions will be undertaken. The Mental Health Legislation Team will review the audit tool to explore if the decision to rescind a detention can be incorporated within this audit.”

    Source location

    2021-0365-Response-from-Leeds-and-York-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 November 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

    Discuss amending the Responsible Clinician form to prompt documentation of mental capacity assessments when rescinding detention.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A discussion will be held through the Trust’s Mental Health Legislation Operational Steering Group to amend the form completed by the Responsible Clinician when a decision to rescind the section is made, which will include a prompt for the Responsible Clinician to ensure that a mental capacity assessment is documented.”

    Source location

    2021-0365-Response-from-Leeds-and-York-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 November 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

    Review the induction package to formalise explicit, proportionate support and supervision for locum medics.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The core professional standards require that any new Responsible Clinician has sufficient familiarity with a patient’s past and current history to support robust decision making. To ensure the Trust learns from the sad death of Mr Bastock, the Professional Medical Lead will formalise the support and supervision arrangements that are in place for locum medics by reviewing the current induction package to ensure support and supervision arrangements are explicit and proportionate.”

    Source location

    2021-0365-Response-from-Leeds-and-York-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 November 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

    Review the clinical handover process for locum medics to support robust clinical decision-making.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust will also review their clinical handover process to ensure it supports robust clinical decision making when locum medics commence in post.”

    Source location

    2021-0365-Response-from-Leeds-and-York-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 November 2021

    Open published response
  4. West Yorkshire, Western Division

    AI-generated summary

    Emma Kate DORMAN · 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

    Emma Kate DORMAN died by asphyxiation by hanging on 24 February 2020 after being allowed leave from the Priestley Unit, Dewsbury & District Hospital. The leave was changed at short notice because of bed availability, and the planned visit by the Home Based Treatment Team did not take place. Concerns included non-clinical influence over the leave decision and the lack of psychologist input on the ward for more than three years.

    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 ensure clinical management and leave decisions are made by responsible clinical staff

    Wider context from the report

    “1. That the decision of leave was dominated by the non-clinical team through the Bed Manager and clinical staff felt they could not object. The draft amended clarification still enable those not directly responsible for patient care to effect clinical management of the patient. ”

    Source location

    Emma Kate DORMAN · 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

    Employ several Matrons with clinical and operational responsibility for inpatient wards.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust notes your continued concern over the decision making by Registered Clinical Staff (Bed Flow Managers) who are not always involved at ward level. Over the past 2 years the Trust has undertaken an extensive review of its clinical structures and has employed several Matrons within its Inpatient settings. The Matrons are clinically and operationally responsible for each Ward”

    Source location

    2021-0071-Response-from-South-West-Yorkshire-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 March 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

    Provide inpatient staff with the Patient Flow Procedure and information clarifying patient-flow roles and responsibilities.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In light of the above and your concerns, the Trust have provided all staff within the Inpatient setting a copy of the current Patient Flow Procedure, accompanied with information specifically detailing theirs and their colleague’s roles as part of the patient flow process.”

    Source location

    2021-0071-Response-from-South-West-Yorkshire-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 March 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

    Monitor inpatient staff understanding of patient-flow procedures and responsibilities through the Matrons’ monthly checklist.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I can confirm that inpatient staff understanding of the procedure, and the responsibilities of those involved in the patient flow process (including that of ward staff and of patient flow staff) will be monitored through the Matron’s monthly checklist.”

    Source location

    2021-0071-Response-from-South-West-Yorkshire-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 March 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 clinical patient-flow procedures, ward oversight and escalation arrangements are considered sufficient to support clinically led admission decisions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust has a Patient Flow Procedure that provides a framework for staff relating to activities around pre-admission, bed allocation and management processes, the inpatient stay and discharge of service users. The procedure is used to support decisions and management of service users from the point when they require access to an inpatient bed, through to their discharge from a ward. The Patient Flow (Bed Management) Team are involved in the application of the patient flow process across the Trust by working in partnership with the Inpatient services. The Patient Flow Team is a clinically led service.”

    Source location

    2021-0071-Response-from-South-West-Yorkshire-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 March 2021

    Open published response
  5. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Dominic Michael 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

    Dominic White, who had bipolar affective disorder and psychosis, rapidly deteriorated over several days and was assessed as requiring detention under section 2 of the Mental Health Act. Before he could be conveyed to a mental health hospital, he left the emergency unit and was found the following day at an electricity substation with injuries consistent with a fall from height. The concerns included whether mental health observation levels were communicated effectively and the clinical decision-making involved in allowing him to leave after detention had been decided.

    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

    Inadequate clinical decision-making for granting leave to detained patients at risk of absconding

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The C&I approved mental health professional (AMHP) who gave Mr White permission to leave the hospital to go to McDonald’s, after the decision had been made to detain him under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, acknowledged that she should have discussed this first with a colleague. However, she remained of the view at inquest that the decision itself had been the right one. Proof of this, she explained, was the fact that Mr White did return to the hospital from this visit. Allowing leave in these circumstances was a very unusual step I am concerned at the lack of recognition, even so long after the event, that allowing a person to leave the hospital in these circumstances: - was not necessarily the right one simply because the patient returned on this occasion (he left again within half an hour and never returned); and - had the potential to lull others into a false sense of security about his risk of absconding. The trust’s root cause analysis action plan merely describes the need to have legally authorised permission to leave, without addressing any question of how to shape clinical decision making. ”

    Source location

    Dominic Michael WHITE · 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

    Update mental health policies and the joint observation protocol to define roles, responsibilities and decision-making case studies.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We set out below our agreed approach for ensuring that all relevant personnel are aware of a mental health patient’s level of observation. In order to address both concerns identified in the PFD, the Whittington and Camden & Islington have reviewed their mental health policies. These are being updated to ensure the roles and responsibilities are explicit and will also include case studies to assist in decision making. This will be included in Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust’s Mental Health Liaison Operational Policy and the Whittington Health NHS policy for mental health patients in the Emergency Department which is currently being updated.”

    Source location

    2017-0177-Response-by-Whittington-Hospital-NHS2-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 August 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct five daily senior-staff situation reports and follow-up reviews covering mental health patients’ risks, observation compliance, care quality and confirmed plans.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “8. To ensure that the level of observations is being complied with and that the clinical decision making regarding Mental Health patients is robust Senior Whittington ED staff members (nurse in charge, site team, ED registrar or consultant) conduct a situation report 5 times per day in which the status of the department including”

    Source location

    2017-0177-Response-by-Whittington-Hospital-NHS2-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 August 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The London Borough of Islington is responsible for responding to concerns about Approved Mental Health Professional decision-making.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The second matter concerns the decision making of the Approved Mental Health Professional. The AMHP is employed by the London Borough of Islington. When AMHPs are carrying out their duties, they act on behalf of the Local Authority. The London Borough of Islington will therefore provide you with a separate response to this issue.”

    Source location

    2017-0177-Response-by-Whittington-Hospital-NHS2-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 August 2017

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026