Recurring concern

Failure to provide timely and reliable carer assessments

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 16 Jan 2015•Latest report 17 Apr 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of the dedicated carer-assessment process, including failure to identify who should receive an assessment, offer or initiate an assessment when carer capacity concerns arise, complete the assessment, or undertake it within the required or clinically appropriate timeframe.

Not included

  • Excludes generic carer support, communication, training or safeguarding deficiencies that do not specifically concern a carer assessment.
  • Excludes failures to provide a care package, respite, accommodation or other support after an assessment has been completed unless the failure is part of the assessment process itself.
  • Excludes patient, mental-capacity, child-safeguarding or clinical risk assessments that are not specifically carer assessments.
  • Excludes generic delays in care planning or treatment where no failure of the carer-assessment process is identified.
Reports
6

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
8

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2025

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
17

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust1
Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust1
East London NHS Foundation Trust1
Essex County Council1
London Borough of Newham1
NHS England1
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust1
Somerset 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. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Linda Sitch · 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

    Linda took her own life on 11 November 2023 after prolonged strain associated with caring for her husband, who had significant physical and mental health problems. Adult Social Care did not substantively respond to safeguarding and carer assessment referrals or the family’s escalating concerns before her death. The report raises concerns about inadequate oversight and the risk that urgent referrals could be inappropriately downgraded or insufficiently reviewed, potentially contributing to future deaths.

    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 respond substantively to safeguarding and carer’s assessment referrals

    Wider context from the report

    “a. Although not determined to be probably causative of the death, by the date of Linda’s death ASC had failed to respond substantively or at all to the Adult Safeguarding Referral dated 29th September 2023; the referral for a Carer’s Assessment for Linda herself, received by ASC on 2nd October 2023; the concerns reiterated by Linda’s family when chasing the 2nd October referral on 16th October 2023. These failures were explained as ‘human error’. ”

    Source location

    Linda Sitch · 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 conduct and document required review before downgrading referral priority

    Wider context from the report

    “b. The oral evidence of the ASC Service Manager at the inquest (though not mentioned in her statement prepared for the purposes of the inquest), confirmed that the Team Manager responsible for downgrading the Priority 1 status of the carer’s assessment referral on 2nd October to Priority 2, without recording a rationale, had likely done so without undertaking the required consideration of either the readily available ASG referral of the 29th September, or the Mental Health Act assessment of Linda herself from the previous year. She agreed that, had an estimated “ten minute” review of the “slim files” for both Linda and her husband been undertaken, as should have happened, the Priority level could not and would not have been reasonably downgraded. She accordingly accepted that, in fact, (and contrary to her witness statement) the decision to downgrade to Priority 2 was capable of being determined, by her as an ASC Service Manager, to be ‘inappropriate’. ”

    Source location

    Linda Sitch · 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

    Increase safeguarding triage capacity and screen every alert before progressing qualifying referrals for further enquiry.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Central Safeguarding Triage Team has undergone transformative change, which has included increasing the resource of the team, implementing an initial screening check of all safeguarding alerts raised and those which are deemed to meet the criteria for safeguarding are then progressed to a safeguarding concern for further enquiries. As a result of these changes, 96% are triaged for a decision as to whether to proceed to safeguarding section 42 enquiry within 72 hours, with outcomes shared back with referrers and next actions agreed. The remaining 4% take a little longer with continuous oversight, whilst waiting for information at the triage stage to enable decision making. Therefore, there are no longer significant delays in progressing safeguarding referrals received.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex County Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 April 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

    Introduce carers practice guidance and core practice guidance covering assessments, reviews, support planning and safeguarding.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• New Carers practice guidance for Adult Social Care operational workers to support better and more timely outcomes for carers.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex County Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 April 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

    Implement recommendations from the external end-to-end safeguarding-process review to improve safeguarding practice and the customer journey.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In Spring 2024, Adult Social Care commissioned an external review of the end-to-end safeguarding process. There were several recommendations, that we are implementing to improve the customer journey and safeguarding practice.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex County Council
    Page 3 · response
    Published 28 April 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

    Implement risk-priority matrices for carers’ assessments, reviews and safeguarding referrals.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• A new Risk Priority Matrix for carers assessments and reviews was implemented in 2023, which was being embedded throughout the year.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex County Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 April 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

    Conduct a scheduled audit of referral progression through allocation and consider issuing further guidance on priority decisions and allocation timescales.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Adult Social Care have scheduled an audit cycle within the next three months, specifically focused on how referrals are progressed when an initial referral is received, through to point of allocation. Following analysis and outcomes of this, we will consider issuing further practice guidance to confirm expectations about making good, defensible decisions around priority levels, including expected timescale for the allocation of work.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex County Council
    Page 3 · response
    Published 28 April 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

    Refresh the Quality Assurance Framework and conduct eight annual audit cycles covering assessments, reviews, mental capacity and safeguarding, with findings reported to the Practice Governance Board.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Alongside the Quality Control measures in place, Adult Social Care refreshed its Quality Assurance Framework in 2024 and there are now eight audit cycles in place throughout every year. These focus on care act assessments/reviews, carers assessments, mental capacity assessments and safeguarding. Audits are analysed and reports are presented to the Practice Governance Board.”

    Source location

    Response from Essex County Council
    Page 5 · response
    Published 28 April 2025

    Open published response
  2. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Regina Olufunmilola Ademiluyi · 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

    Regina Olufunmilola Ademiluyi was an 83-year-old woman who was bed-bound following surgery for a broken hip and died in March 2024 after declining cognition and physical health, malnutrition, a grade 4 sacral pressure ulcer and an aspiration incident. The report raised concerns that state-funded domiciliary care was not provided, and that the NHS Trust and local authority did not adequately assess or respond to safeguarding, mental-capacity and carer-support concerns.

    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 offer a carers assessment in response to concerns about carer capacity

    Wider context from the report

    “1. From October 2023 until her death in March 2024, Regina Ademiluyi was deprived of the state-funded domiciliary care to which she was entitled. The NHS Trust and local authority responsible for her care during this period failed to ensure effective care was provided in the following ways; a. A safeguarding report submitted by NHS district nurses was insufficiently detailed to reflect the concerns that had developed regarding the deceased. The content of the safeguarding report did not trigger the threshold to investigate the matter further. b. When faced with the limited information within the safeguarding report the local authority did not seek further information or clarification from the Trust on the basis of the report. c. The Trust failed to formally assess Mrs Ademiluyi’s mental capacity, had they done so it is possible that an IMCA would have been appointed to act as her voice, over-ruling her daughter’s views which may have resulted in effective care being put in place. d. Despite the concerns raised regarding the behaviour of Mrs Ademiluyi’s daughter no effort was made to offer a carers assessment to address whether she was overwhelmed by the task in hand. ”

    Source location

    Regina Olufunmilola Ademiluyi · 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

    Remind staff to discuss carer self-referral or make carer-assessment referrals on carers’ behalf when concerns arise.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Carer’s Assessment”

    Source location

    Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 25 March 2024

    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 carer definitions, recording processes and frontline documentation under the borough’s established all-age Carers Strategy and delivery board.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Action: | By who: | By when: 4.1 An all-age Carers Strategy is in place for the borough and overseen by a multi-agency delivery board. Further work has taken place through 2023/24 to update carer definitions, improve recording processes and enhance documentation used by frontline staff with carers.”

    Source location

    Response from London Borough of Newham
    Page 4 · response
    Published 25 March 2024

    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

    Roll out refresher carer-awareness training for all frontline adult social care staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “An updated round of refresher training on carer awareness for all frontline ASC staff is being rolled out in May 2024. | Carers Strategy Delivery Board | End of May 2024 4.2 Develop specific guidance for frontline ASC staff on informal/family carers and Safeguarding Adults. | Strategic Safeguarding, Practice and Workforce Development Team | End of June 2024”

    Source location

    Response from London Borough of Newham
    Page 4 · response
    Published 25 March 2024

    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 guidance for frontline adult social care staff on informal and family carers and safeguarding adults.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “An updated round of refresher training on carer awareness for all frontline ASC staff is being rolled out in May 2024. | Carers Strategy Delivery Board | End of May 2024 4.2 Develop specific guidance for frontline ASC staff on informal/family carers and Safeguarding Adults. | Strategic Safeguarding, Practice and Workforce Development Team | End of June 2024”

    Source location

    Response from London Borough of Newham
    Page 4 · response
    Published 25 March 2024

    Open published response
  3. Dorset

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew Arden Nixon · 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

    Andrew Arden Nixon’s mental health deteriorated from around October 2020, and after referral and assessment by mental health services he was found suspended by a ligature in wooded grounds in North Dorset on 3 March 2021. The principal concerns were that family members or carers were not fully involved in risk assessment and care planning, and that criteria for considering a Carer’s Assessment were not applied at the earliest appointment.

    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 criteria for identifying carers for early carer assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. The failure to ensure that family members/carers are fully involved from the outset in the risk assessment process and that they have a full comprehension of steps being taken and/or decisions being made. I believe the Trust should take a more proactive approach. ii. There should be criteria to be applied as to who should be considered for a Carer’s Assessment at the earliest appointment with the Home Treatment Team. Such criteria should include whether the patient has given permission to share information; whether the patient and/or the carer have been involved with mental health services previously; whether the carer has been/will be present during consultations; the level of understanding of the carer in relation to steps taken and decisions made and whether they need further help. iii. Such criteria may lead to a full carer’s assessment. It is noted that there will always be a delay between assessments and the drawing up of care plans etc which will then be sent out to the patient. By establishing an early process of engaging with carers the medical professionals may build in further protective factors for the patient. ”

    Source location

    Andrew Arden Nixon · 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

    Add carer-assessment review and family-liaison checks to Home Treatment Team review checklists and caseload boards.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• The Home Treatment Team plan to include carers assessment in their checklist for clinical review meetings so that carers assessment is reviewed on a weekly basis, as well as to their caseload boards where carers assessment will be marked as complete once families and carers have been asked about their carer needs and been signposted to relevant information. The team currently review”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Somerset
    Page 5 · response
    Published 16 September 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 clinical staff on carer-support resources and when to explore carers assessments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• We will provide an update to all clinical staff about ensuring patients and their carers are aware of carers support resources and to explore with patients and their carers whether assessment is indicated, for example where a carer is expressing difficulty and stress because of their caring role.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Somerset
    Page 6 · response
    Published 16 September 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

    Add reminders about exploring carers assessments to clinical risk training.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• We will add more specific reminders to explore carers assessments with patients and their families/carers in our clinical risk training.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Somerset
    Page 6 · response
    Published 16 September 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

    Include consideration and discussion of carers assessments in the caseload management tool.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• We will include the standard that carers assessment has been considered and discussed with family and carers in the caseload management tool.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Somerset
    Page 6 · response
    Published 16 September 2022

    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

    Service capacity limits carers assessments to main carers, preventing assessments being offered to all carers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is important that staff make available to all carers the opportunity to have a carer’s assessment or signpost to other stakeholders for support. Whilst carers assessment may not be indicated in all cases, and our service capacity means we would only be able to include providing carers assessments to main carers only, it is possible that staff may not be fully aware of the availability of the resource or of who might benefit from it.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Somerset
    Page 5 · response
    Published 16 September 2022

    Open published response
  4. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Dr Geraint Brierley Hughes · 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

    Dr Geraint Brierley Hughes was stabbed once in the chest by his wife at their home on 15 November 2013 and died. The substantive concerns included that a formal carer’s assessment had not been completed and that the case coordinator had not maintained regular contact, resulting in care plans and risk assessments not being regularly updated.

    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 complete formal carer assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “In the Trust’s own Serious Incident Report and the separately conducted Domestic Homicide Review, it was noted that a formal carer’s assessment had not been completed with Doctor Hughes. It was noted that while this could not be said to have been causative of the outcome, nevertheless, it represented a departure from best practice. I was advised that the Trust’s electronic case management system (Rio) was now capable of customisation and had been adapted to ensure that a carer’s assessment was mandatory in cases where domestic abuse was present. ”

    Source location

    Dr Geraint Brierley Hughes · 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

    Apply the Carers Policy and train staff on carers’ rights, assessments and related processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust’s Carers Policy sets out how the Trust assesses, supports and responds to the needs of carers and records this information in RiO (electronic patient record system). The term “carer” refers to “someone who provides practical unpaid help or emotional support to family members, neighbours or friends who use the services of Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust” as defined in the Care Act 2014. The Policy has been produced by the Trust in consultation with patient and carer representatives and applies across all services. Training has been provided to staff on carers’ rights and processes.”

    Source location

    2019-0268-Response-by-Cornwall-Partnership-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 October 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review the Trust’s Carers Policy through the monthly Carers Committee.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust’s Carers Policy is currently being reviewed via the Trust’s Carers Committee which meets monthly and this provides a valuable forum for carers and for the Trust to consider improvements. The Trust’s Carers Lead requests monthly reports from the community mental health services in relation to the number of assessments offered and accepted. The Trust’s community mental health service are also proposing that the role of carers is to be part of the Trust’s 2021 quality account priority to continue to improve engagement with carers.”

    Source location

    2019-0268-Response-by-Cornwall-Partnership-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 October 2019

    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 monthly community mental health reports on carers’ assessments offered and accepted.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust’s Carers Policy is currently being reviewed via the Trust’s Carers Committee which meets monthly and this provides a valuable forum for carers and for the Trust to consider improvements. The Trust’s Carers Lead requests monthly reports from the community mental health services in relation to the number of assessments offered and accepted. The Trust’s community mental health service are also proposing that the role of carers is to be part of the Trust’s 2021 quality account priority to continue to improve engagement with carers.”

    Source location

    2019-0268-Response-by-Cornwall-Partnership-NHS-Trust
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 October 2019

    Open published response
  5. Inner West London

    AI-generated summary

    Peter George Garvin · 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

    Peter George Garvin, who was under the care of a Community Mental Health Team while his medication was prescribed by his GP, entered the Regent’s Canal on 31 January 2018 with the intention of taking his own life. The report identifies concerns about communication between the CMHT and GP, insufficient local psychiatric beds, discharge from NHS care after seeking private psychiatric treatment, and the lack of an early carer’s assessment.

    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 carer assessment during the patient treatment pathway

    Wider context from the report

    “4. That carer’s assessment should be undertaken early in the patient treatment pathway. ”

    Source location

    Peter George Garvin · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  6. 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 make recommended carer’s assessment referrals

    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

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Difficulties in arranging cross-boundary carer’s assessment and service provision

    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