Recurring concern

Failure to provide clinically indicated psychiatric admission

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 13 Dec 2013•Latest report 24 Nov 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures to consider, offer, arrange or provide psychiatric hospital admission when a person's mental state, risk, symptoms or clinical needs indicate that admission should be considered or provided, including failure to admit despite patient or family requests where admission is clinically indicated.

Not included

  • Excludes general hospital-admission delays or bed-capacity shortages unless the assertion specifically concerns a clinically indicated psychiatric admission decision or provision.
  • Excludes failures in psychiatric assessment, treatment, observation, discharge or follow-up where psychiatric admission is not the deficient control.
  • Excludes refusals or non-admission decisions where the report does not identify that psychiatric admission was clinically indicated.
  • Excludes failures confined to referral or crisis-team access when the unsafe condition is not failure to offer or provide psychiatric admission.
Reports
12

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
12

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
26

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 Care5
NHS England5
NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board2
Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust1
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust1
Birmingham City Council1
Care Quality Commission1
Epsom Hospital1
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust1
Health and Care Professions Council1
Health Services Safety Investigations Body1
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board1
NHS South West London Integrated Care Board1
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust1
North London NHS Foundation 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. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Mark Patrick DANIELS · 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

    Mark Patrick Daniels hanged himself following several contacts with South Camden Crisis Response and Resolution Team. The principal concerns were failures to carry out and record planned visits, communicate within the team and with crisis houses, progress a crisis-house referral promptly, and consider hospital admission despite identified suicide risk and Mr Daniels stating that he did not feel safe at home.

    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 consider hospital admission for a patient presenting significant suicide risk

    Wider context from the report

    “You will see from the determination attached, that I found there was a failure by the crisis team: - to visit Mr Daniels twice a day, despite a plan so to do; - to record why twice daily visits were not attempted; - to communicate within the team and with the two crisis houses; - to progress the referral to a crisis house promptly; - to consider hospital admission, despite the fact that Mr Daniels was known to have made several suicide attempts; had told staff he did not feel safe at home; was observed to be keeping a rope at home; told staff he would kill himself, albeit not immediately; said he wanted to be in a contained environment; and there was apparently no prospect of prompt admission to crisis house. I gained the impression of a lack of cohesion and clinical direction. ”

    Source location

    Mark Patrick DANIELS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement measures across all Crisis Teams and Crisis Houses to address the identified concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “████████ Associate Divisional Director for the Acute division has considered your concerns and put in place a comprehensive action plan to address them – the action plan is appended at the end of this letter. As you can see from the action plan updates, several”

    Source location

    2015-0208-Response-by-Camden-and-Islington-NHS-Trust
    Page 1 · response
    Published 1 June 2015

    Open published response
  2. Manchester City

    AI-generated summary

    STEPHANIE DANIELS · 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

    Stephanie Daniels, who had a history of serious mental health problems and repeated self-harm, was admitted to the Safire unit on 22 March 2012 after a delay in securing an inpatient bed. She died there on 24 March 2012 after being found unconscious with a ligature around her neck. The principal concerns included inadequate observation and handover, failure to clerk her in, medication-recording and supervision problems, failures in the emergency response, and deficiencies in the subsequent internal 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

    Delays in admission to an appropriate mental health bed

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Bed Availability MHSC say that following the death of the deceased, a new policy has been introduced so that there is no waiting time at all for the allocation of a bed in the case of a patient who is deemed clinically to require one. A bed will be found somewhere which will be appropriate to their needs. As I understood the evidence from the CCG in the case this should have occurred in any event. However, other NHS Trusts nationwide who do not have such a policy, may have patients whose delayed admission means that they are not having the appropriate nursing and clinical input, as well as medication review. In turn this means their condition may continue to deteriorate and when effective care does start, the patient may well be more ill than they should be. I am concerned that the importance of this is recognised not only by MHSC but nationally for all other NHS mental health trusts. ”

    Source location

    STEPHANIE DANIELS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 10 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Maintain the changed inpatient-bed access process, under which service users requiring admission do not have a waiting list.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I understand that you have raised this concern in your Regulation 28 Report as a national issue. However, as you are aware, following ████████ evidence at the inquest, this Trust implemented a change to how inpatient beds are accessed in January 2013 and we do not have a waiting list of service users requiring admission.”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    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

    Operate daily bed-management calls, weekly delayed-discharge teleconferences and weekly mental-health inpatient-capacity meetings with relevant partners.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a result of the CCG's concerns relating to out of area placements the following process has been set up and has been operational since August 2013:”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Clinical-Commissioning-Groups
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    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

    Purchase additional inpatient capacity in neighbouring NHS facilities and through the charitable sector.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• There are weekly mental health inpatient capacity meetings with representatives from the Trust. Additional capacity has been purchased in neighbouring NHS facilities and via the charitable sector.”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Clinical-Commissioning-Groups
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    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 out-of-area placements and bed availability daily and weekly to support rapid allocation or repatriation and prevent unnecessary waiting.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The number of out of area placements utilised by the Trust is significant and the CCG monitors usage on a daily and weekly basis (as above) to ensure that patients are either allocated a bed quickly or are repatriated as quickly as possible when a bed is available within the Trust.”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Clinical-Commissioning-Groups
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    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 and maintain the escalation protocol enabling use of private-sector beds when Trust capacity is unavailable.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “An escalation protocol was agreed with the Trust in the financial year of 2011/12 which enabled the Trust to utilise private sector beds when it did not have the capacity to accommodate a patient in need of an inpatient bed. This protocol was reviewed following the inquest into the death of patient FK and has been reviewed again in July 2013 to ensure it remains robust. The CCG is confident that the protocol is appropriate and robust.”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Clinical-Commissioning-Groups
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement the inpatient capacity management plan to improve patient experience, bed flow and joint working across stakeholder organisations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “An inpatient capacity management plan has been developed and implemented by the CCG. The overall aims of this plan are:”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Clinical-Commissioning-Groups
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    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

    Acute beds should already be available without waiting for patients clinically deemed to need them.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Your report stated that there should be no waiting time for the allocation of a bed in the case of a patient who is clinically deemed to need one. As the evidence given by the Clinical Commissioning Group in this case stated, this should already be the case. We are clear that acute beds must always be available for people who need them.”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Department-of-Health
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Trust disputes that inpatient bed availability creates a local waiting-list risk, stating that its revised access arrangements left no service users awaiting admission.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I understand that you have raised this concern in your Regulation 28 Report as a national issue. However, as you are aware, following ████████ evidence at the inquest, this Trust implemented a change to how inpatient beds are accessed in January 2013 and we do not have a waiting list of service users requiring admission.”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Mental-Health-NHS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    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

    Decisions about admitting and discharging mental health patients rest with the provider NHS Trust, not the commissioning organisation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Concern No 2 - Bed Availability The commissioning of beds is based on evidence of past need and emerging needs from commissioning intelligence. The CCG does not directly instruct Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust, or any other NHS Trust about how its beds should be utilised and although it monitors the Trust's bed utilisation decisions on patient management are solely the responsibility of the Trust as the provider of NHS care.”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Clinical-Commissioning-Groups
    Page 2 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    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 escalation, monitoring and capacity-management arrangements are considered appropriate and robust for managing inpatient bed availability and out-of-area placements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The number of out of area placements utilised by the Trust is significant and the CCG monitors usage on a daily and weekly basis (as above) to ensure that patients are either allocated a bed quickly or are repatriated as quickly as possible when a bed is available within the Trust.”

    Source location

    2013-0353-Response-by-Manchester-Clinical-Commissioning-Groups
    Page 3 · response
    Published 13 December 2013

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026