Berrywood Hospital

Health and care · Healthcare site

Pin Request correction

First report 12 Feb 2015•Latest report 12 Feb 2015

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

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

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

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Northamptonshire

    AI-generated summary

    Jane Marie Clark and Isobel Griffin · 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

    Jane Marie Clark died by suicide after leaving Berrywood Hospital on 22 August 2013 with an inadequate risk assessment, following recent suicide-related concerns and possession of a ligature. Isobel Griffin died after hanging herself on the ward on 17 August 2013, with death pronounced on 21 August 2013. The principal concerns included inadequate handover and risk assessments, failures to review relevant clinical information and treatment, and insufficient measures to minimise ligature risk.

    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 Berrywood Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delay in allocating a key worker

    Wider context from the report

    “Re Jane Marie Clark 1. The very challenging events of the previous evening and that morning do not appear to have been handed over and the nurse in charge did not read the notes before granting leave. Her risk assessment then was ill informed. It was not discussed with anyone nor properly documented. 2. She did not place any boundaries on the leave for example providing a time by which Jane was to return. 3. Risk assessment documentation generally was poor and appeared perfunctory. Re Isobel Griffin 1. Mrs Griffin was admitted on 1 August and was not allocated a key worker until 8th August. The key worker did not read the notes so was not aware of the events of the 7th. 2. The risk assessment was not updated with the events of the 7th. 3. Mrs Griffin’s responsible clinician saw her on only one occasion on 14 August 2013 at which time he did not read the notes so he was unaware of events on the 7th when she handed in a belt and scissors and said she had 3-4 times tried to hang herself using a ligature. 4. A planned review of medication, diagnosis and treatment never took place despite a number of references in the notes to it from 6 August 2013. Mrs Griffin had been substantially unmedicated for most of the admission despite concerns expressed by her family. 5. On 11 August Mrs Griffin started to express thoughts to harm others. These thoughts distressed her. She did not intend to act on them but they were something new and a measure of her distress. These thoughts and their significance were not included in any risk assessment. 6. A risk assessment concluded on the 18th, the day after she had hanged herself on the ward, purports to be made with her agreement. It was evidence that risk assessment documentation is cut and pasted rather than reflecting the true circumstances. 7. The doors do not appear to be ligature proof and little was made available by way of evidence as to what measures would now be taken to minimise this risk. ”
    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 Berrywood Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Poor and perfunctory risk assessment documentation

    Wider context from the report

    “Re Jane Marie Clark 1. The very challenging events of the previous evening and that morning do not appear to have been handed over and the nurse in charge did not read the notes before granting leave. Her risk assessment then was ill informed. It was not discussed with anyone nor properly documented. 2. She did not place any boundaries on the leave for example providing a time by which Jane was to return. 3. Risk assessment documentation generally was poor and appeared perfunctory. Re Isobel Griffin 1. Mrs Griffin was admitted on 1 August and was not allocated a key worker until 8th August. The key worker did not read the notes so was not aware of the events of the 7th. 2. The risk assessment was not updated with the events of the 7th. 3. Mrs Griffin’s responsible clinician saw her on only one occasion on 14 August 2013 at which time he did not read the notes so he was unaware of events on the 7th when she handed in a belt and scissors and said she had 3-4 times tried to hang herself using a ligature. 4. A planned review of medication, diagnosis and treatment never took place despite a number of references in the notes to it from 6 August 2013. Mrs Griffin had been substantially unmedicated for most of the admission despite concerns expressed by her family. 5. On 11 August Mrs Griffin started to express thoughts to harm others. These thoughts distressed her. She did not intend to act on them but they were something new and a measure of her distress. These thoughts and their significance were not included in any risk assessment. 6. A risk assessment concluded on the 18th, the day after she had hanged herself on the ward, purports to be made with her agreement. It was evidence that risk assessment documentation is cut and pasted rather than reflecting the true circumstances. 7. The doors do not appear to be ligature proof and little was made available by way of evidence as to what measures would now be taken to minimise this risk. ”
    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 Berrywood Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to update risk assessments with emerging risks

    Wider context from the report

    “Re Jane Marie Clark 1. The very challenging events of the previous evening and that morning do not appear to have been handed over and the nurse in charge did not read the notes before granting leave. Her risk assessment then was ill informed. It was not discussed with anyone nor properly documented. 2. She did not place any boundaries on the leave for example providing a time by which Jane was to return. 3. Risk assessment documentation generally was poor and appeared perfunctory. Re Isobel Griffin 1. Mrs Griffin was admitted on 1 August and was not allocated a key worker until 8th August. The key worker did not read the notes so was not aware of the events of the 7th. 2. The risk assessment was not updated with the events of the 7th. 3. Mrs Griffin’s responsible clinician saw her on only one occasion on 14 August 2013 at which time he did not read the notes so he was unaware of events on the 7th when she handed in a belt and scissors and said she had 3-4 times tried to hang herself using a ligature. 4. A planned review of medication, diagnosis and treatment never took place despite a number of references in the notes to it from 6 August 2013. Mrs Griffin had been substantially unmedicated for most of the admission despite concerns expressed by her family. 5. On 11 August Mrs Griffin started to express thoughts to harm others. These thoughts distressed her. She did not intend to act on them but they were something new and a measure of her distress. These thoughts and their significance were not included in any risk assessment. 6. A risk assessment concluded on the 18th, the day after she had hanged herself on the ward, purports to be made with her agreement. It was evidence that risk assessment documentation is cut and pasted rather than reflecting the true circumstances. 7. The doors do not appear to be ligature proof and little was made available by way of evidence as to what measures would now be taken to minimise this risk. ”
    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 Berrywood Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to set boundaries for patient leave

    Wider context from the report

    “Re Jane Marie Clark 1. The very challenging events of the previous evening and that morning do not appear to have been handed over and the nurse in charge did not read the notes before granting leave. Her risk assessment then was ill informed. It was not discussed with anyone nor properly documented. 2. She did not place any boundaries on the leave for example providing a time by which Jane was to return. 3. Risk assessment documentation generally was poor and appeared perfunctory. Re Isobel Griffin 1. Mrs Griffin was admitted on 1 August and was not allocated a key worker until 8th August. The key worker did not read the notes so was not aware of the events of the 7th. 2. The risk assessment was not updated with the events of the 7th. 3. Mrs Griffin’s responsible clinician saw her on only one occasion on 14 August 2013 at which time he did not read the notes so he was unaware of events on the 7th when she handed in a belt and scissors and said she had 3-4 times tried to hang herself using a ligature. 4. A planned review of medication, diagnosis and treatment never took place despite a number of references in the notes to it from 6 August 2013. Mrs Griffin had been substantially unmedicated for most of the admission despite concerns expressed by her family. 5. On 11 August Mrs Griffin started to express thoughts to harm others. These thoughts distressed her. She did not intend to act on them but they were something new and a measure of her distress. These thoughts and their significance were not included in any risk assessment. 6. A risk assessment concluded on the 18th, the day after she had hanged herself on the ward, purports to be made with her agreement. It was evidence that risk assessment documentation is cut and pasted rather than reflecting the true circumstances. 7. The doors do not appear to be ligature proof and little was made available by way of evidence as to what measures would now be taken to minimise this risk. ”
    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 Berrywood Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to communicate and review relevant clinical information before risk decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “Re Jane Marie Clark 1. The very challenging events of the previous evening and that morning do not appear to have been handed over and the nurse in charge did not read the notes before granting leave. Her risk assessment then was ill informed. It was not discussed with anyone nor properly documented. 2. She did not place any boundaries on the leave for example providing a time by which Jane was to return. 3. Risk assessment documentation generally was poor and appeared perfunctory. Re Isobel Griffin 1. Mrs Griffin was admitted on 1 August and was not allocated a key worker until 8th August. The key worker did not read the notes so was not aware of the events of the 7th. 2. The risk assessment was not updated with the events of the 7th. 3. Mrs Griffin’s responsible clinician saw her on only one occasion on 14 August 2013 at which time he did not read the notes so he was unaware of events on the 7th when she handed in a belt and scissors and said she had 3-4 times tried to hang herself using a ligature. 4. A planned review of medication, diagnosis and treatment never took place despite a number of references in the notes to it from 6 August 2013. Mrs Griffin had been substantially unmedicated for most of the admission despite concerns expressed by her family. 5. On 11 August Mrs Griffin started to express thoughts to harm others. These thoughts distressed her. She did not intend to act on them but they were something new and a measure of her distress. These thoughts and their significance were not included in any risk assessment. 6. A risk assessment concluded on the 18th, the day after she had hanged herself on the ward, purports to be made with her agreement. It was evidence that risk assessment documentation is cut and pasted rather than reflecting the true circumstances. 7. The doors do not appear to be ligature proof and little was made available by way of evidence as to what measures would now be taken to minimise this risk. ”
    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 Berrywood Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to discuss risk assessments with relevant staff

    Wider context from the report

    “Re Jane Marie Clark 1. The very challenging events of the previous evening and that morning do not appear to have been handed over and the nurse in charge did not read the notes before granting leave. Her risk assessment then was ill informed. It was not discussed with anyone nor properly documented. 2. She did not place any boundaries on the leave for example providing a time by which Jane was to return. 3. Risk assessment documentation generally was poor and appeared perfunctory. Re Isobel Griffin 1. Mrs Griffin was admitted on 1 August and was not allocated a key worker until 8th August. The key worker did not read the notes so was not aware of the events of the 7th. 2. The risk assessment was not updated with the events of the 7th. 3. Mrs Griffin’s responsible clinician saw her on only one occasion on 14 August 2013 at which time he did not read the notes so he was unaware of events on the 7th when she handed in a belt and scissors and said she had 3-4 times tried to hang herself using a ligature. 4. A planned review of medication, diagnosis and treatment never took place despite a number of references in the notes to it from 6 August 2013. Mrs Griffin had been substantially unmedicated for most of the admission despite concerns expressed by her family. 5. On 11 August Mrs Griffin started to express thoughts to harm others. These thoughts distressed her. She did not intend to act on them but they were something new and a measure of her distress. These thoughts and their significance were not included in any risk assessment. 6. A risk assessment concluded on the 18th, the day after she had hanged herself on the ward, purports to be made with her agreement. It was evidence that risk assessment documentation is cut and pasted rather than reflecting the true circumstances. 7. The doors do not appear to be ligature proof and little was made available by way of evidence as to what measures would now be taken to minimise this risk. ”
    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 Berrywood Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to conduct planned medication, diagnosis and treatment reviews

    Wider context from the report

    “Re Jane Marie Clark 1. The very challenging events of the previous evening and that morning do not appear to have been handed over and the nurse in charge did not read the notes before granting leave. Her risk assessment then was ill informed. It was not discussed with anyone nor properly documented. 2. She did not place any boundaries on the leave for example providing a time by which Jane was to return. 3. Risk assessment documentation generally was poor and appeared perfunctory. Re Isobel Griffin 1. Mrs Griffin was admitted on 1 August and was not allocated a key worker until 8th August. The key worker did not read the notes so was not aware of the events of the 7th. 2. The risk assessment was not updated with the events of the 7th. 3. Mrs Griffin’s responsible clinician saw her on only one occasion on 14 August 2013 at which time he did not read the notes so he was unaware of events on the 7th when she handed in a belt and scissors and said she had 3-4 times tried to hang herself using a ligature. 4. A planned review of medication, diagnosis and treatment never took place despite a number of references in the notes to it from 6 August 2013. Mrs Griffin had been substantially unmedicated for most of the admission despite concerns expressed by her family. 5. On 11 August Mrs Griffin started to express thoughts to harm others. These thoughts distressed her. She did not intend to act on them but they were something new and a measure of her distress. These thoughts and their significance were not included in any risk assessment. 6. A risk assessment concluded on the 18th, the day after she had hanged herself on the ward, purports to be made with her agreement. It was evidence that risk assessment documentation is cut and pasted rather than reflecting the true circumstances. 7. The doors do not appear to be ligature proof and little was made available by way of evidence as to what measures would now be taken to minimise this risk. ”
    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 Berrywood Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unavailability of ligature-proof doors and adequate ligature-risk controls

    Wider context from the report

    “Re Jane Marie Clark 1. The very challenging events of the previous evening and that morning do not appear to have been handed over and the nurse in charge did not read the notes before granting leave. Her risk assessment then was ill informed. It was not discussed with anyone nor properly documented. 2. She did not place any boundaries on the leave for example providing a time by which Jane was to return. 3. Risk assessment documentation generally was poor and appeared perfunctory. Re Isobel Griffin 1. Mrs Griffin was admitted on 1 August and was not allocated a key worker until 8th August. The key worker did not read the notes so was not aware of the events of the 7th. 2. The risk assessment was not updated with the events of the 7th. 3. Mrs Griffin’s responsible clinician saw her on only one occasion on 14 August 2013 at which time he did not read the notes so he was unaware of events on the 7th when she handed in a belt and scissors and said she had 3-4 times tried to hang herself using a ligature. 4. A planned review of medication, diagnosis and treatment never took place despite a number of references in the notes to it from 6 August 2013. Mrs Griffin had been substantially unmedicated for most of the admission despite concerns expressed by her family. 5. On 11 August Mrs Griffin started to express thoughts to harm others. These thoughts distressed her. She did not intend to act on them but they were something new and a measure of her distress. These thoughts and their significance were not included in any risk assessment. 6. A risk assessment concluded on the 18th, the day after she had hanged herself on the ward, purports to be made with her agreement. It was evidence that risk assessment documentation is cut and pasted rather than reflecting the true circumstances. 7. The doors do not appear to be ligature proof and little was made available by way of evidence as to what measures would now be taken to minimise this risk. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

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