Recurring concern

Failure to actively engage mental health service users before discharge

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 16 Jan 2015•Latest report 23 Jun 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures within mental-health services to explore non-attendance or reluctance to engage, make appropriate direct or assertive contact, assess current needs and risks, and avoid discharge until engagement or a safe alternative assessment and follow-up arrangement has been established.

Not included

  • Excludes ordinary missed appointments where the service undertook appropriate exploration, assertive engagement and safe follow-up or discharge planning.
  • Excludes general appointment scheduling, referral-access or waiting-time failures that do not concern engagement with a mental-health service user before discharge.
  • Excludes failures limited to follow-up after a service user has already been safely discharged; those concern post-discharge follow-up rather than pre-discharge engagement.
  • Excludes generic communication, staffing or training deficiencies unless they directly impair the mental-health engagement and discharge process.
Reports
7

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
9

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
14

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.

Cornwall Council2
Department of Health and Social Care2
NHS Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Integrated Care Board2
49 Marine Avenue Surgery1
Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust1
Moorbridge1
NHS North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board1
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust1
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust1
Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust1
Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys 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. Northumberland

    AI-generated summary

    REDACTED Deceased · 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

    The deceased was a 17-year-old girl with autism, anxiety, significant weight loss and extreme malnutrition who died in hospital on 5 May 2024 after cardiac output was lost following vomiting during preparation for insertion of a central venous line. The principal concerns included inadequate monitoring of her weight, lack of face-to-face assessments, failure to refer or escalate care appropriately, discharge from CAMHS without direct assessment, poor communication and unclear oversight of outpatient care.

    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 scrutiny of reluctance to engage and attend appointments

    Wider context from the report

    “3.The deceased was discharged from CAMHS in December 2023 without being seen in person, spoken to or weighed The second referral to CAMHs was following the Consultant Physician’s letter dated 20 November 2023. The request was “I would be grateful if you could see this young girl urgently for advice with regards to oral intake. She has lost weight over a number of months and clinical history as outlined above”. The deceased was offered an appointment in keeping with the 4-week national waiting timescale for CYP with an eating disorder. Contact was made with mum on 24 November and an appointment offered for 13 December 2023. During the call Mum told staff the deceased “hated CAMHS so might kick off and refuse to come”. Mum cancelled the appointment on 11 December 2023. CAMHS contacted mum by telephone on 12 December 2023. Mum said that the deceased was not aware that she had been referred to CAMHs, was not willing to attend. Again, there was no exploration as to why that was the case and no direct contact with the deceased. (a) I am concerned the deceased was discharged from CAMHs on 12 December 2023 without being seen face to face or spoken to directly. (b) I am concerned there was no scrutiny as to why the deceased was reluctant to engage and not attend appointments. ”

    Source location

    REDACTED Deceased · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · 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 provide face-to-face or direct contact before CAMHS discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “3.The deceased was discharged from CAMHS in December 2023 without being seen in person, spoken to or weighed The second referral to CAMHs was following the Consultant Physician’s letter dated 20 November 2023. The request was “I would be grateful if you could see this young girl urgently for advice with regards to oral intake. She has lost weight over a number of months and clinical history as outlined above”. The deceased was offered an appointment in keeping with the 4-week national waiting timescale for CYP with an eating disorder. Contact was made with mum on 24 November and an appointment offered for 13 December 2023. During the call Mum told staff the deceased “hated CAMHS so might kick off and refuse to come”. Mum cancelled the appointment on 11 December 2023. CAMHS contacted mum by telephone on 12 December 2023. Mum said that the deceased was not aware that she had been referred to CAMHs, was not willing to attend. Again, there was no exploration as to why that was the case and no direct contact with the deceased. (a) I am concerned the deceased was discharged from CAMHs on 12 December 2023 without being seen face to face or spoken to directly. (b) I am concerned there was no scrutiny as to why the deceased was reluctant to engage and not attend appointments. ”

    Source location

    REDACTED Deceased · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review patient invitation and follow-up arrangements, considering additional family and community support to improve adolescent attendance and monitoring.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Patient Engagement: We acknowledge the challenges in engaging adolescents reluctant to attend appointments. We will review our approach to invite and follow-ups, considering additional support methods, including involvement of family and community services, to improve attendance and monitoring. We have recently reviewed our Safeguarding Policy (March 2025) which includes an Appendix on "Child Not Brought". This includes several safeguards to check a child is brought to an appointment/monitoring and checklists to re-engage and flag concerns if this is ongoing. The policy has been shared with the team.”

    Source location

    2025-0314 - Response from 49 Marine Avenue Surgery
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 July 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

    Review, implement and share safeguarding procedures and checklists for children not brought to appointments or monitoring.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Patient Engagement: We acknowledge the challenges in engaging adolescents reluctant to attend appointments. We will review our approach to invite and follow-ups, considering additional support methods, including involvement of family and community services, to improve attendance and monitoring. We have recently reviewed our Safeguarding Policy (March 2025) which includes an Appendix on "Child Not Brought". This includes several safeguards to check a child is brought to an appointment/monitoring and checklists to re-engage and flag concerns if this is ongoing. The policy has been shared with the team.”

    Source location

    2025-0314 - Response from 49 Marine Avenue Surgery
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 July 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

    Develop a Dietetics SOP for managing patients who do not attend or are not brought, subject to Trust-wide agreement on tolerances for very low-weight patients.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “14. Introduction of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for management of patients referred to the Nutrition and Dietetics department that do not attend (DNAs) or are not brought to appointments. The SOP will be in line with Trust's framework for non-attendance and the Outpatient Steering Group recommendations. Referrals for patients with a very low weight and BMI who do not attend appointments require further discussion to agree acceptable tolerances Trust-wide. This action will be raised via the Outpatient Steering Group for consideration at the September 2025 meeting.”

    Source location

    2025-0314 - Response from Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 July 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

    Update CAMHS non-engagement guidance to address frequent cancellations, low weight or restricted intake, MDT discussion and safeguarding escalation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “24. In January 2025, the 'Was Not Brought/Did Not Engage' CAMHS guidance was updated to include frequent cancellation guidance. This encompasses non-engagements of young people and children. In this situation, cases will be discussed within the CAMHS MDT and if deemed appropriate, escalated for consideration of a safeguarding referral or Early Help assessment (Early Help is explained in more detail below, in paragraph 31). The addition, the CAMHS guidance outlines that if concerns regarding weight loss and/or restricted dietary intake are identified in the referral and child or young person was not brought or fails to engage in appointments, safeguarding advice and referral must be considered.”

    Source location

    2025-0314 - Response from Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 July 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

    Require CAMHS MDT discussion before discharging non-attending young people, including review of measurements, physical assessment needs and wider risks.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “25. Prior to a decision being made relating to discharge if a child or young person will not attend for a CAMHS assessment, a discussion within the CAMHS MDT will take place and every effort made to discuss with the referring clinician. Clarification will be undertaken at the MDT case discussion with regard to dates when height and weight measurements were taken, and by who, to support the decision-making process. These discussions focus on the potential risks and wider factors impacting on the health and wellbeing of the young person, including consideration as to whether a physical assessment has been completed or is needed.”

    Source location

    2025-0314 - Response from Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 July 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

    Capture the child or young person’s voice during assessment and reassess care plans and risks after cancellations or non-engagement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “26.1 An initial awareness raising training session has been delivered to 41 CAMHS Staff, on 15 July 2025, with a focus on assessment and risks of low weight and associated health needs. Further training is scheduled on 18 September 2025. 26.2 Efforts are made to capture the voice of the child/young person via phone contact and offer of appointment. This is undertaken for each assessment and forms part of the information gathering when a parent or carer is the primary contact. The non-engagement guideline would be applicable in this instance. The non-engagement guidance outlines if a young person, parent or carer cancels an appointment and it is re-booked, care coordinators/Key workers will assess any patterns and the potential risks. They will re-assess the plan of care as needed and inform relevant others depending on the level of concern.”

    Source location

    2025-0314 - Response from Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 July 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

    Review CAMHS non-attendance and cancellation rates through caseload-management meetings, including checks of risk assessments and care plans.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “26.3 'Was Not Brought' and cancellation rates will be reviewed through caseload management (CLM) meetings with clinicians. The purpose is to review caseload numbers, was not brought and cancellation rates. Checks are also made that risk assessments and care plans have been completed. Frequency of caseload management depends on the role of staff e.g. Consultant Psychiatrists have CLM every 3 months. Other members of staff may have CLM every 2 months. This provides assurance that governance processes are being followed.”

    Source location

    2025-0314 - Response from Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 July 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

    Develop, implement and cascade an administrative SOP covering Dietetics non-attendance, cancellations, telephone substitutions and discharge without review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “31. The service is working on a SOP which will provide further assurance that patients are appropriately managed by the Dietetics Admin team. This SOP will include pathways to manage patient DNA’s, cancellations and patient/carer requests to change to a telephone call instead of an in-person contact, or to be discharged without further review. The Admin team will be able to task the clinicians via SystmOne with requests by patients to change appointments and clinicians will need to review the patient record to confirm and agree in writing that the changes are acceptable. This SOP will be cascaded and implemented following the Department meeting in October 2025.”

    Source location

    2025-0314 - Response from Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 6 · response
    Published 14 July 2025

    Open published response
  2. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Sally Poynton · 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

    Sally Poynton, aged 44, was fatally stabbed by her son on 22 June 2021. The report raised concerns about failures in mental-health assessment and follow-up, including inadequate discharge information, difficulties obtaining reassessment, referral handling, communication with family, and discharge without clinical consideration despite signs of deteriorating mental health.

    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

    Discharging referrals without clinical triage of non-response

    Wider context from the report

    “2) Community Mental Health Team i) There was a delay of one month in responding to a letter requesting advice from a GP. This was said to be due to staff shortages. At inquest it was noted that, 3.5 years later, staff shortages remain. I am aware the ICB has made concerted efforts to recruit. This is a concern that appears to require attention from central government and so this point needs addressing by the Secretary of State. I note this is not the first occasion I have written to the Minister to make her aware of the persisting difficulties in recruiting mental health staff in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. ii) A letter requesting advice was treated as a referral (twice.) It was accepted in evidence that there appeared to be confusion on the part of CMHT staff about how to treat a letter from a GP notwithstanding it set out clearly it was a request for advice. iii) Once the letter from the GP was taken as a request for a referral, attempting to contact the patient by telephone. It was known Jacob was selectively mute and so it should have been readily apparent he was not going to respond. Policy appears to have been followed without consideration of the clinical circumstances. iv) Discharging a patient’s referral without any clinical judgment. ████████ referral was discharged after he did not answer his phone twice (as he wouldn’t, being mute) or respond to an opt-in letter (that was sent to the wrong address.) The evidence was clear that ████████ lacked insight into his condition and steadfastly refused all offers of support. He was not going to ‘opt-in’ voluntarily. What appeared from the evidence to be a blanket policy of discharging patients who fail to respond (because they are unwell and lack insight) will result in those patients most in need of care being wrongly discharged. In my view, there needs to be some form of triage or clinical attention given to why a patient has not responded and whether it is appropriate to discharge. I recognise that this consideration, in addition to informing Nearest Relatives of their right to request a MHA, will result in additional burdens for what is an already over-stretched workforce. This may be a matter for the Minister to reflect upon in considering the staffing issue highlighted above. ”

    Source location

    Sally Poynton · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · 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

    No further difficulties need to be overcome in the referral pathway into secondary mental health services.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• In terms of its function as a referral pathway I do not believe that there are any difficulties which need to be overcome.”

    Source location

    Response from Cornwall Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 May 2024

    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 Integrated Care Board is expected to respond to concerns about the specific care provided.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I would expect the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Integrated Care Board to respond in detail to the concerns you have raised about the specifics of the care that Sally’s son received.”

    Source location

    2024-0267 Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 May 2024

    Open published response
  3. North Northumberland and South Northumberland

    AI-generated summary

    Odessa Carey · 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

    Odessa Carey was last seen alive at her home on 4 April 2019 and was found dead on 7 April 2019; the inquest recorded the conclusion “Unlawfully killed”. The report raised concerns about multi-agency risk assessment, substance-misuse referrals, discharge and care coordination, risk assessment, record keeping, and delays in referral to the Community Treatment Team.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the care coordinator to establish direct contact and a relationship with the service user before discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “3. Inpatient discharge 30 May 2018 The discharge was not a coordinated discharge in line with the trust CPA policy. There was no discharge meeting, no involvement with other agencies or family, the service user was still mentally unwell, having delusional beliefs, without supported accommodation, vulnerable, moving to a new locality and without familial support I am concerned there was a lack of opportunity to involve the family or other agencies in the discharge. I am concerned that there was no direct contact or introduction to the service user from the care coordinator whilst an inpatient or before discharge to establish a relationship and trust. ”

    Source location

    Odessa Carey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · 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 in-person engagement before discharge from the Community Treatment Team

    Wider context from the report

    “4. Discharge from the Community Treatment Team on 6 August 2018 There was no pre-discharge meeting in line with trust CPA Policy involving the family, lead professionals, other agencies or a Consultant Psychiatrist for future planning. A more assertive approach to engagement may have been appropriate. I am concerned that following discharge from the Lowry ward to the community and prior to discharge from the community treatment team, the deceased was seen only four times in person by individuals from the mental health team and only once by the care coordinator. I am concerned that more intense, in person engagement was warranted and discharge from the Community Treatment Team was premature. I am concerned that the service user was not seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist at all after 30 May 2018 despite enquiring about a further appointment. ”

    Source location

    Odessa Carey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report
  4. North Northumberland

    AI-generated summary

    Allan Michael WADDUP · 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

    Allan Michael WADDUP died in prison on 13 December 2019 after seeking mental health support. He had been referred and later self-referred, but was discharged without an assessment, was not assessed before his death, and concerns were raised about appointment notification, the Did Not Attend process, delays in triage, and the absence of weekend triage or urgent-assistance guidance on the prison kiosk.

    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 make in-person contact before discharging mental health patients who do not attend appointments

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Mr Waddup was referred to mental health on 30 October 2019. Attempts were made to assess him in his cell over the telephone on 14, 19 and 21 November 2019. He was discharged from mental health on 2 December 2019 without an assessment being undertaken. There was no in person contact to explore the reasons he did not attend those appointments prior to discharge. It could not be confirmed he was personally aware of those appointments. He self-referred on 5 December 2019 and was not triaged within 24 hours or assessed prior to his death. An immediate review of the Did Not Attend (DNA) policy for the mental health services to include an in person contact is being undertaken prior to discharge but has not been completed. ”

    Source location

    Allan Michael WADDUP · 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

    Review the Did Not Attend policy to require in-person contact before mental-health discharge.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(2) Mr Waddup was referred to mental health on 30 October 2019. Attempts were made to assess him in his cell over the telephone on 14, 19 and 21 November 2019. He was discharged from mental health on 2 December without an assessment being undertaken. There was no in person contact to explore the reasons he did not attend those appointments prior to discharge. It could not be confirmed he was personally aware of those appointments. He self-referred on 5 December 2019 and was not triaged within 24 hours or assessed prior to his death. An immediate review of the Did Not Attend (DNA) policy for the mental health services to include an in person contact is being undertaken prior to discharge but has not been completed.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 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

    Share discharge lessons and face-to-face appointment requirements with service staff and Team Managers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the inquest, an immediate lessons learned bulletin was shared with all staff working across the service within the Trust, advising at the point of discharge, appointments must take place face to face. A service level meeting was also convened to share the information and requirements with Team Managers, so ensure information was filtered down to all staff. The Operational Policy for the service has been updated to reflect the updated discharge process and a request has been made to ensure upon review (in January 2023) this is also reflected in the trust wide discharge policy.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 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

    Update the service Operational Policy to reflect the revised face-to-face discharge process.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the inquest, an immediate lessons learned bulletin was shared with all staff working across the service within the Trust, advising at the point of discharge, appointments must take place face to face. A service level meeting was also convened to share the information and requirements with Team Managers, so ensure information was filtered down to all staff. The Operational Policy for the service has been updated to reflect the updated discharge process and a request has been made to ensure upon review (in January 2023) this is also reflected in the trust wide discharge policy.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 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

    Request that the revised discharge process be incorporated into the Trust-wide discharge policy.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the inquest, an immediate lessons learned bulletin was shared with all staff working across the service within the Trust, advising at the point of discharge, appointments must take place face to face. A service level meeting was also convened to share the information and requirements with Team Managers, so ensure information was filtered down to all staff. The Operational Policy for the service has been updated to reflect the updated discharge process and a request has been made to ensure upon review (in January 2023) this is also reflected in the trust wide discharge policy.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys
    Page 2 · response
    Published 3 November 2022

    Open published response
  5. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Emma Burbury · 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 Burbury collapsed after an altercation with her partner and died in hospital on 19 September 2018; the forensic pathologist considered it possible that injuries from the altercation caused or contributed to her death, but the evidence was insufficient to establish this as probable or certain. The report identified a missed opportunity to provide treatment after her July 2017 assessment and concerns about services for people with dual diagnoses, including care coordination, communication between organisations, engagement, and discharge arrangements.

    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 use an assertive approach to engage clients referred to mental health services

    Wider context from the report

    “b] There was concern raised on the part of We Are With You that clients referred to the Trust were too easily discharged, for example, where they failed to attend for two appointments. It was felt a more assertive approach towards engagement would be beneficial. You may feel it would be desirable to try and minimise the amount of wasted and limited CMHT/WAWY resource through non-attendance at appointments or otherwise. You may consider reflection on how this can best be achieved through a more joined up approach would be sensible. ”

    Source location

    Emma Burbury · 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 discharge procedures, including multidisciplinary review and notifications to clinicians and patients, are considered a robust response to disengagement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The decision to discharge a patient follows a robust process as described in detail in the ICMHT Standard Operating Procedure, and this includes discussion at a MDT meeting which will consider the reasons why the patient has not engaged / attended, their existing needs and alternative ways in which engagement could be achieved; and the referring clinician and the patient’s GP must be informed of the patient’s disengagement to enable the exploration of alternative methods to encourage engagement in partnership with other key stakeholders in the patient’s care and any on-going need to risk management.”

    Source location

    2021-0382-Response-from-Cornwall-Partnership_Published
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 November 2021

    Open published response
  6. West Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    Gemma Elizabeth Azhar · 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

    Gemma Azhar self-referred to the Time to Talk service while experiencing long-term anxiety and depression and acute distress related to marital problems. Her assessment appointments were cancelled twice; after the second cancellation, she was discharged without an assessment of her current mental state or risk. She was later found hanging at her home, and the inquest concluded that she died by suicide. The report raised concerns that repeated cancellations and communication solely through administrators could leave people at risk, and that the relevant procedure was not consistently documented or communicated.

    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 clinical contact and assessment after repeated service cancellations

    Wider context from the report

    “Those in need of the TTT service and support may feel discouraged from engaging with the service and be left at risk in the community if, when repeated cancellations occur, they are spoken to only by an office administrator, who is not in any position to enquire about their mental health or make any assessment of their current condition. Indeed ████████, the Clinical Lead for the Time to Talk service in the North Area, of gave evidence at Gemma Azhar’s inquest and informed me that in her view, the service “did not get it right”. She stated that given that the TTT service had cancelled Ms Azhar’s appointment twice, it would have been preferable if there had been attempts made to find her an alternative therapist on 30 September 2019 and, if none was available, for a duty worker to have spoken to Gemma Azhar before she was discharged from the service in order to understand: the reasons for her now declining a third appointment; her current mental state and, if appropriate, seek to engage her and assess her present risk. ████████ informed me that it was now the ‘formal’ position that this should happen after a second cancellation by the service. However, it is a matter of concern to me that staff working in the North area (Horsham, Crawley and Mid Sussex) have only been notified of this ‘formal position’ by an email sent in or around December 2019. This procedure is not part of any written policy or protocol or induction training and therefore new staff in the North area would only learn the procedure by word of mouth. Furthermore, ████████ was not aware whether or not a similar instruction had been given to the Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust’s staff working for the TTT service in other areas. ”

    Source location

    Gemma Elizabeth Azhar · 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

    Create and implement a formal SOP governing service-cancelled appointments, including duty-therapist escalation after two cancellations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(1) A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been created to confirm the processes to be followed when the Service has cancelled appointments. A separate, existing SOP concerning patients who do not attend or who cancel appointments has also been updated. The updated SOP ensures that cancellations of appointments by patients are identified and includes an additional digital audit system as a weekly measure to monitor numbers.”

    Source location

    2020-0026-Response-from-Sussex-Community-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 February 2020

    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

    Establish a digital alert process notifying senior therapists when two service appointments are cancelled without clinician contact.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The new SOP will ensure that administrative staff contact the duty therapist about any patient in circumstances similar to Gemma (where two assessment appointments have been cancelled). This will enable the duty therapist to try to promote engagement and maximise the opportunity for a clinically informed conversation with the patient, with further action taken as necessary. As a further safeguarding measure, a digital alert system, coordinated by the data analysts, will provide a process which will alert senior therapists to”

    Source location

    2020-0026-Response-from-Sussex-Community-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 February 2020

    Open published response
  7. Norfolk

    AI-generated summary

    Mark Robert Anstice · 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 Robert Anstice, who had a history of mental health and social problems and previous self-harm, was found hanged on 27 September 2014. Concerns included that recommended support-worker or care-coordinator provision was not actioned, uncertainty about a carer’s assessment referral, gaps in team awareness of appointments, and difficulties supporting his attendance at group sessions due to lack of transport or means.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to establish contact and review non-attendance before discharge from mental health team

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) On 12 August 2014 Psychiatrist recommended Mr Anstice would benefit from a Support Worker and/or Care Co-ordinator – this was not actioned. The reason for this is not known – it was indicated this may be due to an administrative problem; (2) It was recommended a referral be made for a Carer’s Assessment on 1 September 2014. It is not clear this referral was made. Even if it had been made there would be difficulties with assessment and provision of the service in view of the fact Mr Anstice resided in Norfolk and the service would be provided by Suffolk MH Team (3) The appointment arranged with the Psychiatrist for 12 November 2014 was not known by other members of the Team, despite Team Meetings being in place to discuss Mr Anstice’s care. (4) It was recommended to Mr Anstice he attend Group sessions to help overcome feelings of social isolation, whilst being unaware as to whether Mr Anstice was physically able to attend those Group sessions. He did not have the transport or means to attend such groups. (5) When it became known to the IDT that Mr Anstice did not have the transport or means to attend the Groups, consideration was given as to how to help him overcome those practical difficulties but Mr Anstice was not informed that help was being considered. (6) Mr Anstice was discharged from Bury North IDT on 17 September 2014, being invited to attend Groups and having attended one on the 5 September 2014. However IDT were unable to speak with Mr Anstice by telephone on 5 September 2014, 8 September 2014 (tried 3 times) and he did not attend Group session on 12 September 2014. (7) At the time of Mr Anstice’s discharge from Bury North IDT, IDT were unaware Mr Anstice had an appointment with a Psychiatrist on 12 November 2014. ”

    Source location

    Mark Robert Anstice · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026