Recipient

Abbey Court Independent HospitalIncludes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.

Pin Request correction

First report 5 Dec 2016•Latest report 5 Dec 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Multi-service care provider. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Abbey Court Independent Hospital linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to: The Chief Executive, Abbey Court Independent Hospital.

    Cheshire

    AI-generated summary

    Brian Gerrard · 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

    Brian Gerrard had moderately severe mixed Alzheimer’s/vascular dementia, depression and intermittent infections, and died after becoming undernourished because he was not eating sufficiently. The inquest concluded that he died from natural causes, namely lack of eating due to dementia. Concerns related to staff understanding and management of best-interests meetings, identification of lack of capacity, and implementation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding procedures, including inaccurate and contradictory information in an application.

    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. The report was sent to Abbey Court Independent Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to identify lack of capacity

    Wider context from the report

    “The MATTERS OF CONCERN relate to (1) the understanding of staff in relation to the proper management of a best interests meeting, (2) the identification of lack of capacity and (3) the implementation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding procedures. All such deficiencies appeared to warrant an amendment of procedures and a requirement for appropriate training. On 26th September 2014 a best interests, multidisciplinary meeting was called at your hospital to decide upon what action to take to address the fact that the deceased was not eating sufficiently and might be close to death. Those present at the meeting included the deceased’s named nurse who took the minutes of the meeting, the deceased’s wife, a psychiatrist who was the deceased’s responsible clinician and a General Practitioner from the deceased’s medical practice. The meeting decided that it was in the deceased’s best interests to remain at your hospital rather than being transferred to a general hospital for treatment. In that regard the minute of the meeting correctly reflected what had been agreed. However, it was also minuted that the deceased had determined to die and that to achieve this aim he was deliberately not eating and that he had capacity to make such a decision. Such did not represent the opinion of the psychiatrist / responsible clinician nor the opinion of the general practitioner, both of whom were of the view that the deceased did not have capacity and that he had not formulated a plan to die but that his lack of eating was a product of his illness. Thereafter an application for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard contained inaccurate and contradictory information and appeared to demonstrate a lack of familiarity with procedures. For instance, the application asserted that the deceased had capacity to make decisions with regard to his care needs when such did not represent the opinions of the clinicians responsible for the deceased’s care. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Abbey Court Independent Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to implement Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding procedures accurately

    Wider context from the report

    “The MATTERS OF CONCERN relate to (1) the understanding of staff in relation to the proper management of a best interests meeting, (2) the identification of lack of capacity and (3) the implementation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding procedures. All such deficiencies appeared to warrant an amendment of procedures and a requirement for appropriate training. On 26th September 2014 a best interests, multidisciplinary meeting was called at your hospital to decide upon what action to take to address the fact that the deceased was not eating sufficiently and might be close to death. Those present at the meeting included the deceased’s named nurse who took the minutes of the meeting, the deceased’s wife, a psychiatrist who was the deceased’s responsible clinician and a General Practitioner from the deceased’s medical practice. The meeting decided that it was in the deceased’s best interests to remain at your hospital rather than being transferred to a general hospital for treatment. In that regard the minute of the meeting correctly reflected what had been agreed. However, it was also minuted that the deceased had determined to die and that to achieve this aim he was deliberately not eating and that he had capacity to make such a decision. Such did not represent the opinion of the psychiatrist / responsible clinician nor the opinion of the general practitioner, both of whom were of the view that the deceased did not have capacity and that he had not formulated a plan to die but that his lack of eating was a product of his illness. Thereafter an application for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard contained inaccurate and contradictory information and appeared to demonstrate a lack of familiarity with procedures. For instance, the application asserted that the deceased had capacity to make decisions with regard to his care needs when such did not represent the opinions of the clinicians responsible for the deceased’s care. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Abbey Court Independent Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure that best interests meeting minutes accurately reflect participants’ views

    Wider context from the report

    “The MATTERS OF CONCERN relate to (1) the understanding of staff in relation to the proper management of a best interests meeting, (2) the identification of lack of capacity and (3) the implementation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding procedures. All such deficiencies appeared to warrant an amendment of procedures and a requirement for appropriate training. On 26th September 2014 a best interests, multidisciplinary meeting was called at your hospital to decide upon what action to take to address the fact that the deceased was not eating sufficiently and might be close to death. Those present at the meeting included the deceased’s named nurse who took the minutes of the meeting, the deceased’s wife, a psychiatrist who was the deceased’s responsible clinician and a General Practitioner from the deceased’s medical practice. The meeting decided that it was in the deceased’s best interests to remain at your hospital rather than being transferred to a general hospital for treatment. In that regard the minute of the meeting correctly reflected what had been agreed. However, it was also minuted that the deceased had determined to die and that to achieve this aim he was deliberately not eating and that he had capacity to make such a decision. Such did not represent the opinion of the psychiatrist / responsible clinician nor the opinion of the general practitioner, both of whom were of the view that the deceased did not have capacity and that he had not formulated a plan to die but that his lack of eating was a product of his illness. Thereafter an application for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard contained inaccurate and contradictory information and appeared to demonstrate a lack of familiarity with procedures. For instance, the application asserted that the deceased had capacity to make decisions with regard to his care needs when such did not represent the opinions of the clinicians responsible for the deceased’s care. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026