Recipient

Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry

Pin Request correction

First report 5 Feb 2016•Latest report 5 Feb 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · University faculty or school. 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 Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Chentoоri Chanthirakumar · 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

    Chentoоri Chanthirakumar, a 24-year-old medical student, died by suicide after being discharged from a period of inpatient mental health treatment. The concerns included the university communicating by email about her examinations rather than arranging a personal meeting, and mental health staff not fully absorbing concerns raised by others because of confidentiality 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. The report was sent to Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to consider personal meetings when communicating significant academic decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “The decision that Ms Chanthirakumar could re-take the fourth year of her medical degree was seen by the medical school as a helpful decision. The re-take was allowed on the basis of her ill health and was not a criticism of her academic achievement. That she would not be able to take her fourth year examinations in August 2015 came to be regarded as almost self evident, because she had not been able to attend the majority of her recent clinical placement and had been so recently so unwell. However, unbeknown to the university staff, Ms Chanthirakumar appears to have lacked some insight at this point, and was actually hoping not to have to re-take the year, but instead to take her fourth year exams in August 2015. Given the very particular course of very recent events leading up to the medical school’s decision, I wonder whether a personal meeting to discuss matters with her could have been arranged, rather than communicating this by email. A face to face meeting may not necessarily have had any impact on the outcome, but nevertheless I think would be a helpful consideration for the process in the future. ”
    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 Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to distinguish receiving and acting on third-party concerns from disclosing patient details

    Wider context from the report

    “After the medical school was alerted to Ms Chanthirakumar’s illness by two of her friends on 17 June 2015, a senior lecturer working in student support services (and, as it happens, herself a general practitioner) rang Globe Ward of Mile End Hospital and spoke to a treating nurse. Her intention in making this call was to deliver information, most specifically to relay concerns that Ms Chanthirakumar was not being wholly open with staff about the extent of her distress. However, such was the ward nurse’s anxiety not to breach patient confidentiality, the conversation was not as meaningful or as productive as it might otherwise have been. It seems to me that nurses and doctors working in mental health particularly, would benefit from a reminder of the difference between absorbing (and, if appropriate, acting upon) concerns raised by a patient’s relatives, friends, tutors etc., and divulging a patient’s private details. ”
    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