Recipient

Association of Directors of Adult Social Services

Pin Request correction

First report 31 Oct 2017•Latest report 5 Jan 2022

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Professional membership body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
50%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

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.

50%published responses found
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Association of Directors of Adult Social Services linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Bedfordshire and Luton

    AI-generated summary

    James EMMERSON · 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

    James Emmerson, known as Jamie, was detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act on 1 February 2019 but was discharged without being interviewed by an Approved Mental Health Professional. He was later detained at a police custody suite and died by hanging at home on 3 February 2019. The principal concern was confusion in the Code of Practice, which led to an interpretation that an Approved Mental Health Professional assessment was not required before discharge, exposing patients to significant risk including self-harm or suicide.

    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 Association of Directors of Adult Social Services; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide AMHP assessment before discharge from section 136 detention

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Confusion generated by the Department of Health Guide “Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice” (“The Code”). The Mental Health Act 1983 is the relevant Act under which persons may be assessed or detained when they are suspected or diagnosed as having one of a number of mental disorders. Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is a power which allows police officers to remove a person who is in a place to which the public have access to a place of safety. Many mental health facilities have designated “section 136 suites” where the detained person can be taken for assessment. Jamie was in a public place when his psychiatric needs assessed by police were such that he needed to be taken to a place of safety. He was taken to the section 136 suite at the Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. Section 136 (2) MHA 1983 provides that “A person removed to or kept at a place of safety under this section may be detained there for ........ the purpose of enabling him to be examined by a registered medical practitioner and to be interviewed by an approved mental health professional and of making any necessary arrangements for his treatment or care”. “The Code” (s 16.25) states: “The purpose of removing a person to a place of safety in these circumstances is only to enable the person to be examined by a doctor and interviewed by an AMHP, so that the necessary arrangements can be made for the person’s care and treatment. “The Code” (s16.27) states: “The person should be assessed by a doctor and interviewed by an AMHP as soon as possible after the person is brought to the place of safety.” Jamie was never examined by an AMPH only by a lone section 12 approved junior doctor and he was discharged from his s.136. In answer to the question as to why he was not examined by an AMPH s 16.50 of “The Code” was relied on which states: “If a doctor assesses the person and concludes that the person is not suffering from a mental disorder then the person must be discharged, even if not seen by an AMHP.” This was interpreted as meaning that assessment by an AMPH was not a required formality. This was a deeply flawed interpretation but it is possible to see where the ambiguity arises. I was told that this arrangement was “custom and practice” in Bedfordshire and Luton and also in other areas. Whether it was custom and practice or not I consider that the arrangement contravened both the spirit and the letter of the Mental Health Act 1983. It exposed patients to significant risk, including that of self harm or suicide by failing to provide adequate assessment prior to discharge from s. 136 detention. I was told that the position in Bedfordshire and Luton had been regularised by the time of the Inquest but I have no knowledge as to practice in the “other areas” referred to. ”
    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 Association of Directors of Adult Social Services; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Ambiguity in guidance on required AMHP assessment under section 136

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Confusion generated by the Department of Health Guide “Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice” (“The Code”). The Mental Health Act 1983 is the relevant Act under which persons may be assessed or detained when they are suspected or diagnosed as having one of a number of mental disorders. Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is a power which allows police officers to remove a person who is in a place to which the public have access to a place of safety. Many mental health facilities have designated “section 136 suites” where the detained person can be taken for assessment. Jamie was in a public place when his psychiatric needs assessed by police were such that he needed to be taken to a place of safety. He was taken to the section 136 suite at the Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. Section 136 (2) MHA 1983 provides that “A person removed to or kept at a place of safety under this section may be detained there for ........ the purpose of enabling him to be examined by a registered medical practitioner and to be interviewed by an approved mental health professional and of making any necessary arrangements for his treatment or care”. “The Code” (s 16.25) states: “The purpose of removing a person to a place of safety in these circumstances is only to enable the person to be examined by a doctor and interviewed by an AMHP, so that the necessary arrangements can be made for the person’s care and treatment. “The Code” (s16.27) states: “The person should be assessed by a doctor and interviewed by an AMHP as soon as possible after the person is brought to the place of safety.” Jamie was never examined by an AMPH only by a lone section 12 approved junior doctor and he was discharged from his s.136. In answer to the question as to why he was not examined by an AMPH s 16.50 of “The Code” was relied on which states: “If a doctor assesses the person and concludes that the person is not suffering from a mental disorder then the person must be discharged, even if not seen by an AMHP.” This was interpreted as meaning that assessment by an AMPH was not a required formality. This was a deeply flawed interpretation but it is possible to see where the ambiguity arises. I was told that this arrangement was “custom and practice” in Bedfordshire and Luton and also in other areas. Whether it was custom and practice or not I consider that the arrangement contravened both the spirit and the letter of the Mental Health Act 1983. It exposed patients to significant risk, including that of self harm or suicide by failing to provide adequate assessment prior to discharge from s. 136 detention. I was told that the position in Bedfordshire and Luton had been regularised by the time of the Inquest but I have no knowledge as to practice in the “other areas” referred to. ”
    Open source report

  2. Central Hampshire

    AI-generated summary

    Gordon Penistan · 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

    Gordon Penistan, who had dementia and had recently moved to a residential home, became unsettled by a loud noise and sustained an unwitnessed fall on a staircase on 24 May 2017. He suffered a head injury and died from a subdural haematoma. The substantive concerns included the handling of his move to a less expensive home, including the lack of a best-interests meeting and inadequate communication and consideration of the effects of the move on him.

    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 Association of Directors of Adult Social Services; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Risk of similar cases in adult services across local authority areas

    Wider context from the report

    “Adults’ services in other local authority areas are likely to experience similar cases and could benefit from the lessons learnt from the review in this case and the actions taken by Hampshire County Council to address the shortcomings highlighted by the death. The Association would be in a position to share this information with other Adult Services. ”
    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

    Circulate the confidential briefing and lessons learned to all 153 local authorities responsible for adult social care through the weekly news bulletin.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In response to your letter and regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths we have circulated the attached briefing to all 153 local authorities with responsibility for adult social care. This was done via our news bulletin which is sent out every Tuesday afternoon. The following was sent as part of the news bulletin on Tuesday 31 October:”

    Source location

    2017-0313-Response-by-ADASS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 November 2017

    Open published response
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

50%
50%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
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