Recurring concern

Unreliable assessment of suicide and self-harm risk

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 5 May 2013•Latest report 27 May 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of controls specifically dedicated to assessing suicide or self-harm risk, including identifying relevant factors, completing or updating assessments, assessing disclosed vulnerability or suicidal intent, using appropriate tools or protocols, and documenting the reasoning needed to support safe observation, referral or protective action across healthcare, custody, police and community settings.

Not included

  • Excludes generic mental-health risk assessments where suicide or self-harm risk is not the material concern.
  • Excludes failures in observation, treatment, referral, communication or protective measures after suicide or self-harm risk has been reliably assessed, unless the assessment process itself is also deficient.
  • Excludes generic staff training, staffing, documentation or communication deficiencies that are not directly dedicated to assessing suicide or self-harm risk.
  • Excludes the underlying occurrence of suicide or self-harm where no failure in a dedicated risk-assessment control is identified.
Reports
77

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
94

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
132

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.

HM Prison and Probation Service12
NHS England9
Department of Health and Social Care7
Home Office7
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust6
North London NHS Foundation Trust5
Metropolitan Police Service4
Ministry of Justice4
North East London NHS Foundation Trust4
Care UK3
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust3
HM Prison Service3
Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust3
Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust2
General Medical Council2

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. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Marcin Jack STOGA · 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

    Marcin Stoga had been held on remand at HMP Bullingdon since November 2012 and was found hanging in his cell on 24 April 2013, the day after attending court. Concerns included information about a previous overdose not being available during his initial assessment, and prisoners with mental health difficulties or a medium/high risk of self-harm not being routinely assessed after returning from court. The inquest jury confirmed suicide and identified missed opportunities to support him that were systemic in nature.

    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 thorough post-court assessments for prisoners at elevated self-harm or suicide risk

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) A second concern, which is to some degree related to the first, is the fact that prisoners (particularly those with mental health difficulties or who are otherwise at a medium/high risk of self-harm) are not routinely assessed on return from court hearings. Mr Stoga attended court on 7 December 2012 and again on 11 February 2013 and 23 April 2013, the day before his death. There were no such assessments. On this last occasion it is believed that Mr Stoga was charged with assaulting his partner. I understand from evidence and information at Inquest that there has been a review (and that this issue also formed part of the PPO Recommendations) and that persons returning from court will be seen by the Duty Reception Nurse to ascertain any change in circumstances. What is not clear is if this is anything other than a cursory assessment. It appears that a more thorough assessment is likely to be required for those prisoners who have a history of mental health issues and are believed to be at a medium/high risk of self-harm or suicide. It appears there may be a need for some written guidance for staff or perhaps a protocol. ”

    Source location

    Marcin Jack STOGA · 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

    Implement and routinely use a reception checklist to acknowledge risk information and support self-harm and suicide risk assessment after court returns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In your Regulation 28 report, you expressed your concern that on Mr Stoga’s arrival at HMP Bullingdon, the Prisoner Escort Record (PER) was not shared with prison officers or healthcare staff who initially interviewed and assessed Mr Stoga. The PER is the key document for ensuring that information about the risks posed to and by prisoners on external movement from prisons or transferred within the criminal justice system is available to those responsible for their custody. I am aware that you invited submissions on your draft Regulation 28 report to which the Treasury Solicitor responded on 18 July confirming that since the inquest into the death of Mr Stoga, the Deputy Governor had put in place a checklist to assist in the assessment of risk of self-harm and suicide.”

    Source location

    2014-0576-Response-by-NOMS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 21 July 2014

    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

    Trial revised national and local Prisoner Escort Records in the South Central Area, incorporating suicide and self-harm alerts and prominent red-flag risk information pages.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You will, I am sure be interested to know that a Pilot Regional PER forum has met twice in the second part of this year at HMP Winchester attended by a wide range of key stakeholders and operational practitioners. The forums remit is to consider and develop improvements to the PER whilst addressing the recommendations from the HMIP Thematic Review and related ones from the Independent Police Complaints Commission and HM Coroners in response to deaths in custody. Whilst the Regional forum reports to a National Steering Group there has been much progress and it is intended to trial two revised PER’s in the South Central Area in early 2015. The first is a “National” PER document for use by court escorts and for inter prison transfers and a “Local” PER for use in hospital and Police escorts.”

    Source location

    2014-0576-Response-by-NOMS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 21 July 2014

    Open published response
  2. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Gary Richards · 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

    Gary Richards had a forensic history and was at increased risk of taking his own life. He deliberately jumped in front of a moving train at Ladywell Station on 10 October 2012 and died at KCH on 16 October 2012. Concerns included inadequate assessment and communication of his self-harm risk, failures in follow-up and reliable communication, and uncompleted actions addressing identified service-delivery problems.

    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 properly assess and record self-harm and suicide risk

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Psychiatric staff did not properly assess his risk of self harm, nor communicate his vulnerability to others. At discharge on 10/05 his risk of self harm was not fully measured. On being seen on 14/06 his risk assessment was not recorded and the risk plan not sent to the GP. The consultant explained that the risk was not mitigatable as no mental illness was found. Evidence was heard that his forensic history indicated that he belonged to a group of patients with 80 times the risk of suicide compared with the general population, yet he was considered at low risk. The value of performing a proper risk assessment to demonstrate the risks and vulnerabilities of the patient to other agencies, such as housing and social services, does not seem to have been considered, although it was reluctantly conceded by the consultant to be of value especially as homelessness presented as the primary problem. ”

    Source location

    Gary Richards · 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

    Remind staff to record risk assessments in the correct electronic patient-record section.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust’s policy on risk assessment is clear in its documentation and staff have been reminded to ensure that when risk is assessed, that this is documented in the correct fashion in the relevant section of the electronic patient record to ensure that this is easily accessible by all clinical staff.”

    Source location

    2014-0212-Response-by-South-London-Maudsley-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 May 2014

    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

    Risk was assessed during admission but recorded in the wrong electronic-record location, rather than not being assessed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is correct that there is no formal documentation of risk in the correct location on the PJS (our electronic patient record system) either at the point of his presentation under Section 136 or whilst on the Triage Ward. This was noted in the Trust’s investigators in their report. However, there is clear evidence in the clinical records that risk was assessed and is documented in the detailed entries made by the ward medical staff during his admission. It was acknowledged that there was a risk of suicide but this was not linked to mental illness but rather the difficult circumstances he found himself in, in particular, his homelessness.”

    Source location

    2014-0212-Response-by-South-London-Maudsley-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 May 2014

    Open published response
  3. Milton Keynes

    AI-generated summary

    Kevin Scarlett · 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

    Kevin Scarlett was found hanging from a bunk using a sheet as a ligature in a cell at HMP Woodhill on 22 May 2013 and died. The report raised concerns that his risk of self-harm or suicide was not properly assessed and that prison and healthcare staff lacked access to a risk assessment tool or protocol. The inquest also identified concerns about his accommodation, regime, and case management.

    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 assess the risk of suicide

    Wider context from the report

    “I felt that the prison service and healthcare did not assess the risk of Mr. Scarlett taking his own life, and I was informed that the staff did not have access to a risk assessment tool or protocol for assessing such risks. ”

    Source location

    Kevin Scarlett · 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

    Revise the local ACCT case-review process, including enhanced reviews for prisoners with complex needs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Turning to the circumstances leading up to Mr Scarlett’s death, NOMS accepts the findings of the PPO report and the inquest that, whilst there was an assessment of the risk of suicide or self-harm, this should have been conducted in a more rigorous manner. You may be aware that in response to the PPO’s recommendations in this case, HMP Woodhill reviewed the local ACCT process in December 2013. The case review process was revised, and guidance on this, including the use of enhanced case reviews for prisoners with complex needs, was issued to all staff (see attached staff information notice 027/14, issued in January 2014). Notices have also been issued to remind staff of known triggers and risk factors, and more recently to highlight key learning from recent deaths in custody across the prison estate (see attached staff information notice 073/14, issued in March 2014).”

    Source location

    2014-0174-Response-by-NOMS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 April 2014

    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

    Issue staff guidance and notices covering revised ACCT reviews, suicide and self-harm triggers, and learning from recent custody deaths.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Turning to the circumstances leading up to Mr Scarlett’s death, NOMS accepts the findings of the PPO report and the inquest that, whilst there was an assessment of the risk of suicide or self-harm, this should have been conducted in a more rigorous manner. You may be aware that in response to the PPO’s recommendations in this case, HMP Woodhill reviewed the local ACCT process in December 2013. The case review process was revised, and guidance on this, including the use of enhanced case reviews for prisoners with complex needs, was issued to all staff (see attached staff information notice 027/14, issued in January 2014). Notices have also been issued to remind staff of known triggers and risk factors, and more recently to highlight key learning from recent deaths in custody across the prison estate (see attached staff information notice 073/14, issued in March 2014).”

    Source location

    2014-0174-Response-by-NOMS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 April 2014

    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 processes are considered comprehensive and effective for identifying and assessing prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I hope this provides assurance that there is a comprehensive and effective set of systems for identifying that a prisoner is at risk, and that where this occurs a further detailed assessment is undertaken to ensure that all relevant factors are considered and risks identified. Some specific tools, such as the reception healthcare screen, are used, but of necessity they form only a small part of this very broad set of processes.”

    Source location

    2014-0174-Response-by-NOMS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 April 2014

    Open published response
  4. Inner West London

    AI-generated summary

    Professor John Elfed Davies · 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

    Professor John Elfed Davies, aged 71, was found deceased in his hotel room on 10 June 2013 with self-inflicted incised wounds to his neck and multiple stab wounds to his chest. The inquest concluded that he took his own life, and a note indicated that GMC proceedings were playing on his mind. The principal concern was that doctors undergoing GMC investigations may experience unrecognised and unsupported adverse psychological effects, including suicidal or other self-harming behaviour.

    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 assess and identify suicidal or other self-harming behaviour in clinicians subject to investigative processes

    Wider context from the report

    “This is the second death of a doctor that has come before me over the last 2 years where a GMC investigation into the doctor’s practise has been found to play a part. I am concerned that clinicians who are subject to such investigative processes are suffering adverse psychological effects which may be unrecognised and unsupported. Consideration should be given to the language and tone of written communications, the provision of information about relevant support agencies, and the assessment and identification of suicidal or other self harming behaviour by the relevant body and the facilitation of appropriate on-ward referral. ”

    Source location

    Professor John Elfed Davies · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  5. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Abdullahi Sharif ABOKAR · 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

    Abdullahi Sharif Abokar, a 22-year-old patient detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act, was found hanging from smoke alarm wires on a secure mental health ward on 16 June 2012 and died five days after being taken to hospital. Concerns included staff not asking him about suicidal thoughts and significant shortcomings in the conduct of resuscitation, including compromised ventilatory support and uncertainty about airway management.

    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 ask patients about thoughts of taking their life

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Asking the suicide question Several members of staff looking after him did not ask Mr Abokar if he had thoughts of taking his life. Some, including his ward manager, gave evidence that they thought that asking the question might give a patient the idea of taking his life, though evidence was given by the assistant director of nursing that this thinking is not in accordance with training or accepted practice. One mental health nurse said that, although he would ask the suicide question of a patient who appeared isolated or in low mood, he could not ever remember asking that question, despite his work on a secure mental health ward. ”

    Source location

    Abdullahi Sharif ABOKAR · 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

    Require clinical staff to ask every patient about suicidal thoughts or plans, reinforced through supervision and monitoring of clinical standards.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust has implemented the following plan to ensure patient safety through staff having competence and confidence in the assessment of suicidal risk in patients. The Trust expects all its clinical staff to regularly ask every patient about suicide, in terms of thoughts or plans and this issue is explored in clinical supervision and through regular monitoring of clinical standards.”

    Source location

    2013-0323-Response-by-Camden-Islington-NHS-Foundation-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 February 2014

    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

    Commission acute inpatient suicide-prevention training from King’s College London for all inpatient services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “d) The Trust will commission Acute In-patient Suicide Prevention training from Kings College, London by March 2014 for all inpatient services.”

    Source location

    2013-0323-Response-by-Camden-Islington-NHS-Foundation-Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 23 February 2014

    Open published response
  6. Norfolk

    AI-generated summary

    Matthew Christopher Dunham · 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 Christopher Dunham, who was receiving mental health services and had recently expressed suicidal ideation, leapt from the fifth floor of a shopping mall in Norwich and was pronounced dead at the scene. The concerns included delays in responding to an emergency referral, uncertainty about referral responsibilities, insufficient response to signs of suicide risk, inappropriate correspondence, and poor coordination and information sharing between mental health professionals.

    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 recognise and act on suicide or serious self-harm risk

    Wider context from the report

    “c) On the 8th of April 2013, despite the fact that Mr Dunham was presenting as feeling suicidal and specifically that he had set up a noose in his flat the previous night, it was not thought appropriate to refer him to the crisis team for appropriately robust intervention. This raises the issue of the basis upon which the risk of suicide or serious self harm is recognised and acted upon particularly where the person concerned has gone beyond vague suicidal ideation and moved towards contemplating some specific way of ending his life. ”

    Source location

    Matthew Christopher Dunham · 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

    Monitor urgent referrals against the four-hour standard through daily reporting, senior oversight, and clinical review of contact and minimum telephone-contact requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust has implemented monitoring mechanisms for the four hour 'urgent referral' standard which is reported daily to commissioners and is monitored by senior managers and clinicians.”

    Source location

    Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 January 2014

    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

    Audit the assessment structure and clinicians’ judgements to support further development of suicide-risk assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust's internal investigation recognised that the AAT is a new service (commenced in February 2013). The investigation recommended that an audit be completed to seek assurance on the robustness of the assessment structure, both from the perspective of the framework and clinician's individual judgements within it. This will provide the evidence to support further developments in the assessment of suicide risk alongside the Trust's current mandatory training programme. This audit is currently in progress and I would be happy to share a copy of its report upon conclusion.”

    Source location

    Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 January 2014

    Open published response
  7. North London

    AI-generated summary

    Roshen Abbas Ladak-Ebrahim · 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

    Roshen Abbas Ladak-Ebrahim, aged 22, was found having hanged himself at home on the evening of 11 October 2012. The report raised concerns about assessing and recording immediate risk of self-harm, ensuring patients at risk were not left alone, and requiring appropriate medical consultation and follow-up when prescribing medication associated with increased self-harm 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

    Lack of structured assessment and recording of self-harm risk factors

    Wider context from the report

    “Consideration to be given to issuing guidance when assessing risk of self-harm. The suggestion at the inquest was to firstly assess and record whether there is an immediate risk of self-harm. If there is no immediate risk of self-harm then the assessment should focus on whether there are any thoughts of self-harm, (recording frequency, duration, intensity etc). Whether there is a plan, (recording the details of the plan or plans, etc) and whether there is an intention to end life. Whether the individual is vulnerable to acting on impulse and any past history. The use of high, medium and low risk were considered unhelpful when assessing risk of self-harm. ”

    Source location

    Roshen Abbas Ladak-Ebrahim · 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

    Use of unhelpful high, medium and low risk categories in self-harm risk assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “Consideration to be given to issuing guidance when assessing risk of self-harm. The suggestion at the inquest was to firstly assess and record whether there is an immediate risk of self-harm. If there is no immediate risk of self-harm then the assessment should focus on whether there are any thoughts of self-harm, (recording frequency, duration, intensity etc). Whether there is a plan, (recording the details of the plan or plans, etc) and whether there is an intention to end life. Whether the individual is vulnerable to acting on impulse and any past history. The use of high, medium and low risk were considered unhelpful when assessing risk of self-harm. ”

    Source location

    Roshen Abbas Ladak-Ebrahim · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing NICE clinical guidelines sufficiently address assessing immediate self-harm and suicide risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Taking your points in turn: guidance on risk assessment is included in clinical guidelines (CG133 Self-harm: longer-term management) produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and issued in November 2011. It is worth quoting a relevant extract. The guidelines state:”

    Source location

    2013-0287-Response-by-Department-of-Health
    Page 2 · response
    Published 5 November 2013

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026