Recurring concern

Failure to ensure academic staff are competent to recognise and respond to student mental-health risks

First to latest report 24 Jul 2019 — 19 Jan 2024

Reports that mention this concern: 3
Times this concern has been raised: 5
Stated actions linked to this concern: 2

What this concern includes

Includes failures in academic-staff training and competence-assurance arrangements specifically intended to recognise or respond to student mental-health, self-harm or suicide risks, including mandatory requirements, accessible provision, completion monitoring, assessment, refresher training and guidance on initial enquiries or escalation.

What is not included

Excludes general student mental-health service capacity, counselling access, treatment or crisis-response failures where academic-staff competence is not the deficient control.
Excludes general academic advising, pastoral support or student-engagement failures that do not concern academic staff recognising or responding to mental-health risks.
Excludes training for clinical, prison, care, police or other staff groups unless the assertion explicitly concerns academic staff supporting students.
Excludes generic training-compliance or staff-development deficiencies without a direct student mental-health, self-harm or suicide-risk connection.

Trends

Reports over time

Reports mentioning this concern, over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust1

Department for Education1

Department of Health and Social Care1

Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust1

Health and Safety Executive1

University of Exeter1

University of Southampton1

Reports and published responses 3 reports

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

19 Jan2024
Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton
Concerns raised3
1. Failure to ensure and monitor academic staff completion of student mental health training
2. Failure to equip academic staff to identify and appropriately engage students with neurodiversity
3. Insufficient academic staff awareness and understanding of student mental health
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Matthew George WICKES · 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 George WICKES died in hospital on 30 June 2022 after jumping from a road bridge in Southampton during an acute anxiety crisis. Concerns included university staff awareness and training on student mental health and neurodiversity, gaps between academic assessment and pastoral support, difficulties in effectively reaching struggling students, and inadequate recording of academic meetings and agreed support.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure and monitor academic staff completion of student mental health training
Wider context from the report
“1. Matthew was neurodiverse. It was accepted that this condition was not known by the university at the relevant time, as he was diagnosed after his commencement on his course and did not disclose his condition to the university. In the circumstances, appropriate actions and case specific assistance which might otherwise have been available to and assisted Matthew were neither implemented in response nor accessed by him. Notwithstanding Matthew’s neurodiversity – which of itself was a barrier to him being able to reach out or to seek help - I am concerned about the level of awareness, understanding and curiosity of academic staff around the mental health of students, particularly in the post-pandemic climate, where interruptions to their study and dysregulated student life have had a significant impact on their mental health. Whilst it was explained to me that all staff are offered training on mental health management and are provided with guidance on how to support students, I am concerned that aspects of this are not made compulsory for academic staff. Where a myriad of training options are made available to staff and often required of them, with very little practical time available in which to do it, there is a risk that modules and aids with regard to mental health will not be prioritised, followed through or accessed. There is as I understand it no evident monitoring in respect of which staff have viewed or undertaken what training or indeed in respect of who has completed the modules on offer. It remains unclear as to who or how many staff have actually viewed or undertaken the online training around student mental health. Although the process of ‘raising a concern’ by academic staff is a means by which such matters can be considered and is a process set up and encouraged through the student hubs, I am concerned that in not ensuring that academic staff are at least armed with the ability to spot or to know when to make initial enquiries of students or are clearly guided on how best to do so (particularly with regard to an understanding of the needs and skills required to liaise with students with neurodiversity), there is a risk that an over-focus on academic policies and procedures will endure and that those students who are struggling to adhere to them will be missed or overlooked. ”
Source location
Matthew George WICKES · 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
Failure to equip academic staff to identify and appropriately engage students with neurodiversity
Wider context from the report
“1. Matthew was neurodiverse. It was accepted that this condition was not known by the university at the relevant time, as he was diagnosed after his commencement on his course and did not disclose his condition to the university. In the circumstances, appropriate actions and case specific assistance which might otherwise have been available to and assisted Matthew were neither implemented in response nor accessed by him. Notwithstanding Matthew’s neurodiversity – which of itself was a barrier to him being able to reach out or to seek help - I am concerned about the level of awareness, understanding and curiosity of academic staff around the mental health of students, particularly in the post-pandemic climate, where interruptions to their study and dysregulated student life have had a significant impact on their mental health. Whilst it was explained to me that all staff are offered training on mental health management and are provided with guidance on how to support students, I am concerned that aspects of this are not made compulsory for academic staff. Where a myriad of training options are made available to staff and often required of them, with very little practical time available in which to do it, there is a risk that modules and aids with regard to mental health will not be prioritised, followed through or accessed. There is as I understand it no evident monitoring in respect of which staff have viewed or undertaken what training or indeed in respect of who has completed the modules on offer. It remains unclear as to who or how many staff have actually viewed or undertaken the online training around student mental health. Although the process of ‘raising a concern’ by academic staff is a means by which such matters can be considered and is a process set up and encouraged through the student hubs, I am concerned that in not ensuring that academic staff are at least armed with the ability to spot or to know when to make initial enquiries of students or are clearly guided on how best to do so (particularly with regard to an understanding of the needs and skills required to liaise with students with neurodiversity), there is a risk that an over-focus on academic policies and procedures will endure and that those students who are struggling to adhere to them will be missed or overlooked. ”
Source location
Matthew George WICKES · 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
Insufficient academic staff awareness and understanding of student mental health
Wider context from the report
“1. Matthew was neurodiverse. It was accepted that this condition was not known by the university at the relevant time, as he was diagnosed after his commencement on his course and did not disclose his condition to the university. In the circumstances, appropriate actions and case specific assistance which might otherwise have been available to and assisted Matthew were neither implemented in response nor accessed by him. Notwithstanding Matthew’s neurodiversity – which of itself was a barrier to him being able to reach out or to seek help - I am concerned about the level of awareness, understanding and curiosity of academic staff around the mental health of students, particularly in the post-pandemic climate, where interruptions to their study and dysregulated student life have had a significant impact on their mental health. Whilst it was explained to me that all staff are offered training on mental health management and are provided with guidance on how to support students, I am concerned that aspects of this are not made compulsory for academic staff. Where a myriad of training options are made available to staff and often required of them, with very little practical time available in which to do it, there is a risk that modules and aids with regard to mental health will not be prioritised, followed through or accessed. There is as I understand it no evident monitoring in respect of which staff have viewed or undertaken what training or indeed in respect of who has completed the modules on offer. It remains unclear as to who or how many staff have actually viewed or undertaken the online training around student mental health. Although the process of ‘raising a concern’ by academic staff is a means by which such matters can be considered and is a process set up and encouraged through the student hubs, I am concerned that in not ensuring that academic staff are at least armed with the ability to spot or to know when to make initial enquiries of students or are clearly guided on how best to do so (particularly with regard to an understanding of the needs and skills required to liaise with students with neurodiversity), there is a risk that an over-focus on academic policies and procedures will endure and that those students who are struggling to adhere to them will be missed or overlooked. ”
Source location
Matthew George WICKES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
4 Nov2022
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of mandatory suicide prevention and mental health awareness training for academic staff
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

University of Exeter
Stated actions 2
1. University of Exeter
  Consolidate staff mental-health training courses and clarify attendance requirements for student-facing roles.
2. University of Exeter
  Implement a phased, role-appropriate suicide-prevention and mental-health training programme for staff, including mandatory introductory training.
AI-generated summary

HARRY JOSEPH PENGELLY ARMSTRONG EVANS · 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

Harry Joseph Pengelly Armstrong Evans died by hanging on 24 June 2021 during an acute mental health crisis, following academic pressures and concerns about his wellbeing. The report identified concerns about the university’s lack of proactive personal engagement, failures in safeguarding alert follow-up, insufficient staff awareness of information-sharing policies, and reliance on email and online forms to access welfare support.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of mandatory suicide prevention and mental health awareness training for academic staff
Wider context from the report
“1) Training The evidence that indicated an absence of mandatory training for academic staff on suicide prevention and mental health awareness. The University is invited to review the provision of training for academic staff upon information sharing (see below), mental health awareness and suicide prevention. ”
Source location
HARRY JOSEPH PENGELLY ARMSTRONG EVANS · 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
Consolidate staff mental-health training courses and clarify attendance requirements for student-facing roles.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The University currently offers a range of mental health awareness training courses for academic and Professional Services colleagues who are in student facing roles. Following receipt of the Report, the University has undertaken a detailed review of this provision. Part of this review has identified the need to consolidate the courses offered and to provide clarity on who should attend, to ensure that everyone in student facing roles has the awareness and information to support students who are struggling. This work is already underway.”

Source location
Response from Vice-Chancellor's
Page 1 · response
Published 7 November 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
Implement a phased, role-appropriate suicide-prevention and mental-health training programme for staff, including mandatory introductory training.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Further to the review of staff training, the University wishes to embed good practice in suicide safety and adopt a whole university approach to suicide prevention. This will involve a phased roll-out of training for all staff that is (a) appropriate to their personal/emotional capacity (it may not be appropriate for some colleagues) and (b) relevant and proportionate to their institutional role. The training will be separated into four levels ensuring the level of training taken is based on training needs assessment, role and individual skills and expertise, as follows:”

Source location
Response from Vice-Chancellor's
Page 1 · response
Published 7 November 2022
Open published response
24 Jul2019
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Insufficient mental health training and specialist liaison for university welfare staff
This report raised 10 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Hannah Dolly Kaur Bharaj · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

Report summary

Hannah Dolly Kaur Bharaj had anorexia, depression and fluctuating suicidal ideation, and died at Salford Royal Hospital on 13 July 2018 from injuries sustained after jumping from a first-floor café. Concerns included inadequate communication and discharge planning, unsuitable placement and care coordination, incomplete sharing of clinical information, and the safety of the café balustrade and adjacent table.

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
Insufficient mental health training and specialist liaison for university welfare staff
Wider context from the report
“7. The inquest was told by the clinical lead for Eating Disorders of the high risk of Eating Disorders in high achieving students on courses such as medicine. In such cases, the inquest was told universities need to be alert to early signs of anxiety that risk leading to eating disorders developing. As part of this understanding by universities the inquest was told of the need to recognise early signs of mental health issues and listen carefully from an early stage. The skill set/training of academics in welfare roles in relation to mental health was described as key and specific work with Eating Disorder services and training of those involved in welfare programmes supporting students can be effective; ”
Source location
Hannah Dolly Kaur Bharaj · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Trends

Reports mentioning this concern, over time

Concerns raised3

Failure to ensure and monitor academic staff completion of student mental health training

Failure to equip academic staff to identify and appropriately engage students with neurodiversity

Insufficient academic staff awareness and understanding of student mental health

Concerns raised1

Lack of mandatory suicide prevention and mental health awareness training for academic staff

Linked response

Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Concerns raised1

Insufficient mental health training and specialist liaison for university welfare staff

Stated actions 2