Bury Borough Council

Local government · English metropolitan district council

Request correction

First report 26 Dec 2014•Latest report 17 Jan 2020

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: 5
Published responses: 60%
Concerns addressed: 8
Stated actions: 11

Concerns and recipient responses

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

17 Jan2020
Manchester North
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to contact parents before closing a referral where no safeguarding or legal reason prevents contact
2. Failure to share safeguarding referral information and reasons with relevant third parties, services or agencies
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Make speaking with parents or carers part of MASH referral practice unless a safeguarding or legal reason prevents contact.
AI-generated summary

Shneur Zalman Kaye · 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

Shneur Zalman Kaye died at home on 24 August 2018, aged 14, from suffocation caused by inhalation of helium. The report raises concerns that a safeguarding referral was closed without contacting Shneur or his parents and that the referral and reasons for it were not shared with relevant third parties or agencies, potentially limiting assessment and protective action.

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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to contact parents before closing a referral where no safeguarding or legal reason prevents contact
Wider context from the report
“1. The decision to close a referral without prior contact with parents (where there is no safeguarding or legal reason why such contact should not be made) potentially deprives the Social Worker of the opportunity to contextualise the event or concern which has triggered the referral, and of forming an informed view of the welfare of the child to whom the referral relates; ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to share safeguarding referral information and reasons with relevant third parties, services or agencies
Wider context from the report
“2...The evidence received by the Court indicates that the closure of the safeguarding referral marks an end to social services involvement. Despite this no attempt is made to share the fact of the referral or the reasons for it with any third party, service or agency. This may have the unintended result of depriving third parties (including parents) and agencies already participating in the care and welfare of a child from being alerted to the concern and taking appropriate action (including accessing other services) in response to it. The submissions made on behalf of the council indicate these practices are driven by considerations of data protection compliance The practice imperils the precedence to be given to the paramountcy principle and has the potential to undermine the protection of children who are the subject of referral. ”
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
Make speaking with parents or carers part of MASH referral practice unless a safeguarding or legal reason prevents contact.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Strength based practice within the MASH, working alongside parents/carers and seeing them as an expert in their own right is standard practice and unless there is a safeguarding or legal reason not to, it is an expectation that parents/carers are spoken with as part of the process.”

Source location
Response from Bury Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 February 2020
Open published response
8 Aug2018
Manchester North
Concerns raised9
1. Inadequate and unsafe medicine administration training, supervision and audit processes
2. Inadequate and unsafe medicines policy
3. Inadequate and incomplete record keeping
1. Inadequate pre-admission assessment of care needs
2. Lack of a policy or protocol for observation and monitoring of service users
3. Failure to recognise deteriorating service users
4. Inadequate pre-admission risk assessment
5. Delays in seeking medical attention when service users deteriorate
6. Insufficient communication and handover during transfers of care
No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Dr Donald Clegg · 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 Donald Clegg, who had complex physical and mental health needs, was transferred to a short-term residential placement that was unable to manage his care needs. Concerns included inadequate assessment and communication during the transfer, unsafe medication management, insufficient monitoring, delayed recognition of deterioration and inadequate record keeping. He developed breathing difficulties and seizure-like activity on 26 February 2018, was admitted to hospital and died later that day; the stated cause of death was acute left ventricular heart failure due to severe ischaemic heart disease and left ventricular hypertrophy.

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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate and unsafe medicine administration training, supervision and audit processes
Wider context from the report
“3. The evidence indicated that the: i) Medicine Policy &/or ii)Medicine administration training, supervision and audit processes at Persona were inadequate and unsafe (indeed, the audit process was perfunctory). ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate and unsafe medicines policy
Wider context from the report
“3. The evidence indicated that the: i) Medicine Policy &/or ii)Medicine administration training, supervision and audit processes at Persona were inadequate and unsafe (indeed, the audit process was perfunctory). ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate and incomplete record keeping
Wider context from the report
“5. Record keeping was inadequate and in parts, incomplete. Record keeping is vital in keeping service users safe. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate pre-admission assessment of care needs
Wider context from the report
“Persona Only: 2. The process of assessment of care needs prior to admission was inadequate. Assessment is critical in establishing the suitability and safety of a placement – in this case, capable of meeting complex physical and mental health needs of the individual. Assessment of risk, in particular, was inadequate. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a policy or protocol for observation and monitoring of service users
Wider context from the report
“6. There is no policy/protocol for the observation/monitoring of service users e.g. when directed to do so by a medical practitioner. Staff are left to interpret for themselves what this means. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to recognise deteriorating service users
Wider context from the report
“4. Staff were unable to recognise the deteriorating adult and did not seek medical attention in a timely manner when signs of change became apparent. This potentially puts service users at risk of harm/death. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate pre-admission risk assessment
Wider context from the report
“Persona Only: 2. The process of assessment of care needs prior to admission was inadequate. Assessment is critical in establishing the suitability and safety of a placement – in this case, capable of meeting complex physical and mental health needs of the individual. Assessment of risk, in particular, was inadequate. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Delays in seeking medical attention when service users deteriorate
Wider context from the report
“4. Staff were unable to recognise the deteriorating adult and did not seek medical attention in a timely manner when signs of change became apparent. This potentially puts service users at risk of harm/death. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient communication and handover during transfers of care
Wider context from the report
“Persona and Bury MBC: 1. Communication/transfer of care/handover between social services, the first placement and/or the final placement was insufficient, given the complexities of the deceased’s case. ”
Open source report
21 Aug2017
Manchester (North)
Concerns raised7
1. Failure to document carriageway defect condition during inspections
2. Lack of a duty-of-candour procedure for significant incidents
3. Unmarked potholes lacking paint markings
1. Failure to investigate carriageway defects below the 40mm threshold
2. Inconsistent application of the current highway-management procedure
3. Lack of an effective significant-incident investigation and learning procedure
4. Failure to repair carriageway defects at or above the 40mm threshold
Actions described in response 6
1. Action
  Take routine photographs of dangerous defects before repair and of repairs afterward.
2. Action
  Provide specific training and competency checks for highway inspectors under the new Code of Practice.
3. Action
  Maintain highway inspection procedures and systems in accordance with best-practice guidance.
1. Action
  Conduct regular evidence-based reviews and monitoring of the new Code of Practice.
2. Action
  Agree an overarching framework with Greater Manchester highway authorities for consistent risk-based inspection, repair and investigation approaches.
3. Action
  Develop and implement a formal follow-up investigation procedure for highway incidents reported by Greater Manchester Police.
Respondent positions 4
1. Position
  The Highway Authority does not paint carriageway potholes because doing so would expose highway inspectors to danger from traffic.
  Unable to act
1. Position
  Given traffic speeds, paint markings alone would not have sufficiently highlighted the pothole to road users.
  Disputes the concern
2. Position
  Paint markings are unnecessary because handheld GPS identifies defects precisely and risk-based repair timescales ensure responsive repair.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
3. Position
  The lack of pothole images or measurements did not restrict effective supervision or compliance with the statutory highway safety duty.
  Disputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Mr Roger Hamer · 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

Mr Roger Hamer fell from his bicycle on Bury New Road, suffering a traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures, and died in hospital from those injuries on 2 April 2016. The inquest jury found that a pothole probably caused his fall. Concerns included inadequate recording and monitoring of carriageway deterioration, a lack of paint markings around potholes, the absence of a duty-of-candour procedure for investigating significant incidents, and proposed highway-management thresholds that might increase risks to cyclists.

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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to document carriageway defect condition during inspections
Wider context from the report
“(1) When he inspected the carriageway in January 2016 and February 2016 the highway inspector did not photograph, measure and/or record any details as to the condition of the carriageway where the Pothole developed despite it having started to deteriorate, wear and crack by October 2015. This prevented the Highway Authority from effectively assessing the rate of deterioration of this part of the carriageway which may have helped to inform it as to the need for earlier repair. Also, the lack of images and/or measurements of the Pothole as at the date of the inspections restricted the Highway Authority’s ability to effectively supervise and monitor the highway inspector and it hindered the jury’s ability to make more detailed findings as to the circumstances of Mr Hamer’s death. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a duty-of-candour procedure for significant incidents
Wider context from the report
“(3) The Highway Authority does not have a procedure with a duty of candour for the effective investigation of, and learning lessons from, significant incidents comparable to those adopted by other public bodies (for example within the National Health Service). ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unmarked potholes lacking paint markings
Wider context from the report
“(2) The jury recorded its concern as to the lack of paint markings around the potholes which may have highlighted their presence to Mr Hamer thereby enabling him to avoid them. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to investigate carriageway defects below the 40mm threshold
Wider context from the report
“(4) The Highway Authority is in the process of adopting a new procedure for highway management (“the New Procedure”), apparently based upon Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: a Code of Practice published by the Department for Transport in October 2016. With regards to defects in the carriageway, the Highway Authority’s current procedure for highway management has an intervention level of 40mm so that any defect which is found to be 40mm or greater is repaired. Under the New Procedure 40mm will be redefined as the “investigation level”, so that once a carriageway defect is greater than 40mm a highway inspector will investigate it and consider whether a repair is needed. If 40mm is specified in the New Procedure as the minimum threshold for investigation then defects which measure less than 40mm may not be investigated and defects of 40mm or above may not be repaired. Whilst I was informed that highway inspectors have a discretion under both the current and new procedures to repair defects which do not meet the intervention or investigation criteria the jury noted inconsistencies in the application of the current procedure and I consider that the New Procedure will increase the risk of future deaths, in particular to cyclists. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inconsistent application of the current highway-management procedure
Wider context from the report
“(4) The Highway Authority is in the process of adopting a new procedure for highway management (“the New Procedure”), apparently based upon Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: a Code of Practice published by the Department for Transport in October 2016. With regards to defects in the carriageway, the Highway Authority’s current procedure for highway management has an intervention level of 40mm so that any defect which is found to be 40mm or greater is repaired. Under the New Procedure 40mm will be redefined as the “investigation level”, so that once a carriageway defect is greater than 40mm a highway inspector will investigate it and consider whether a repair is needed. If 40mm is specified in the New Procedure as the minimum threshold for investigation then defects which measure less than 40mm may not be investigated and defects of 40mm or above may not be repaired. Whilst I was informed that highway inspectors have a discretion under both the current and new procedures to repair defects which do not meet the intervention or investigation criteria the jury noted inconsistencies in the application of the current procedure and I consider that the New Procedure will increase the risk of future deaths, in particular to cyclists. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of an effective significant-incident investigation and learning procedure
Wider context from the report
“(3) The Highway Authority does not have a procedure with a duty of candour for the effective investigation of, and learning lessons from, significant incidents comparable to those adopted by other public bodies (for example within the National Health Service). ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to repair carriageway defects at or above the 40mm threshold
Wider context from the report
“(4) The Highway Authority is in the process of adopting a new procedure for highway management (“the New Procedure”), apparently based upon Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: a Code of Practice published by the Department for Transport in October 2016. With regards to defects in the carriageway, the Highway Authority’s current procedure for highway management has an intervention level of 40mm so that any defect which is found to be 40mm or greater is repaired. Under the New Procedure 40mm will be redefined as the “investigation level”, so that once a carriageway defect is greater than 40mm a highway inspector will investigate it and consider whether a repair is needed. If 40mm is specified in the New Procedure as the minimum threshold for investigation then defects which measure less than 40mm may not be investigated and defects of 40mm or above may not be repaired. Whilst I was informed that highway inspectors have a discretion under both the current and new procedures to repair defects which do not meet the intervention or investigation criteria the jury noted inconsistencies in the application of the current procedure and I consider that the New Procedure will increase the risk of future deaths, in particular to cyclists. ”
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
Take routine photographs of dangerous defects before repair and of repairs afterward.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Due to investment in the highway maintenance procedures and IT systems, highway inspectors now routinely take photographs of defects giving rise to a real source of danger. Repair crews also take photographs prior to and post repair.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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
Provide specific training and competency checks for highway inspectors under the new Code of Practice.

Verbatim wording from the response
“All Highway Inspectors are scheduled to undergo specific training and competency checks to ensure that they understand how to undertake their role under the new Code of Practice.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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
Maintain highway inspection procedures and systems in accordance with best-practice guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1) Bury Council, as Highway Authority, ensured that their procedures and systems of inspection were in accordance with best practice guidance as set out within the Well Maintained Highways – A Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management 2009.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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 regular evidence-based reviews and monitoring of the new Code of Practice.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Highway Authority aim is to ensure consistency of approach in application of both the current and the new Code of Practice. The new risk based approach and specific training of inspectors on their role in accordance with the WMHI Code of Practice should allow the Highway Authority to apply a consistent risk based approach where the reasons for taking specific decisions will be evidenced. There will be regular evidence based reviews of the new Code of Practice and monitoring.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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
Agree an overarching framework with Greater Manchester highway authorities for consistent risk-based inspection, repair and investigation approaches.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Bury Council in collaboration with the other 9 Greater Manchester Highway Authorities, are seeking to agree an “Overarching Framework of Agreed Principles” which would provide consistency of approach across the boundaries on the following matters: frequency and classification of highways, the risk based approach to safety inspections, the risk based approach to repair timescales, the investigative levels which would trigger the Highway inspector to apply the risk based matrix for assessing the risk.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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 and implement a formal follow-up investigation procedure for highway incidents reported by Greater Manchester Police.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3) GMP investigates highway incidents and reports these to Bury Council by the STATS 19 process. Any incidents linked to road defects (either condition or layout) are acted upon as soon as possible.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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
The Highway Authority does not paint carriageway potholes because doing so would expose highway inspectors to danger from traffic.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2) The Highway Authority does not paint markings around potholes especially in the carriageway. As identified above this is for reasons of safety of the highway inspector who would otherwise place himself in a position of danger caused by traffic.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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
Given traffic speeds, paint markings alone would not have sufficiently highlighted the pothole to road users.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Given the speed at which vehicular traffic uses Bury New Road, Ramsbottom, the Highway Authority contend that markings alone would not have been sufficient to highlight the presence of the pothole to Mr Hamer.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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
Paint markings are unnecessary because handheld GPS identifies defects precisely and risk-based repair timescales ensure responsive repair.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Paint markings are not used to highlight defects to users of the highway. If they were historically used then this would have been to allow a pothole raised for repair to be identified by the repair team. The need to mark defects is no longer”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 7 November 2017
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
The lack of pothole images or measurements did not restrict effective supervision or compliance with the statutory highway safety duty.

Verbatim wording from the response
“It is not accepted that the lack of images or measurements of the pothole restricted the Highway Authority’s ability to effectively supervise and monitor the highway inspector or did not allow it to comply with its statutory duty under the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that they had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that part of the highway was not dangerous for traffic.”

Source location
2017-0259-Response-by-Bury-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 7 November 2017
Open published response
11 Feb2015
Manchester North
Concerns raised1
1. Failure of toilet cubicle doors to permit safe access when an occupant is slumped forward
No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Anne Horner · 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

Anne Horner was a resident at Oak Lodge Nursing Home when she sustained head injuries in two incidents involving a toilet cubicle door. Following the second incident on 25 March 2014, she was found unresponsive and died at Salford Royal Hospital from a traumatic head injury. The principal concern was that the toilet cubicle door and available clearance may not have adequately accommodated a resident who had fallen or was slumped forward.

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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of toilet cubicle doors to permit safe access when an occupant is slumped forward
Wider context from the report
“4. The evidence at Inquest confirmed that the bathroom facility which included the toilet cubicle was constructed in or about 1988 in compliance with the relevant Planning Permission and Building Regulations. I accept that the facility had been used on many previous occasions without incident. The fact however that a resident sustained injury on two separate occasions within a period of 6 weeks gives rise to concern. I anticipate that there are many establishments within England and Wales where toilet facilities are not dissimilar to those at Oak Lodge Nursing Home. I understand that separate guidance in relation to disabled toilet design suggests doors that open outwards to facilitate access if someone falls behind the door. Whilst photographic images produced at Inquest suggested adequate door clearance for a resident sitting normally on the toilet, that would not be so for an individual resident who sat / was slumped forward. ”
Open source report
26 Dec2014
Manchester North
Concerns raised2
1. Delays in follow-up and welfare checks after self-discharge following a life-threatening drugs overdose
2. Lack of a suitable out-of-hours service for people with drug addiction problems
No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Anthony Maurice Huggan · 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

Anthony Maurice Huggan, who had a longstanding drug problem, was admitted to hospital after an accidental opiate overdose but self-discharged against medical advice on 3 June 2014. He was found deceased at home the following day after taking excessive amounts of prescribed and illicit substances; post-mortem examination and toxicology identified combined drugs toxicity involving Pregabalin, Morphine and Methadone. Concerns included the lack of an out-of-hours community drugs service and the timeliness of follow-up or welfare checks after a life-threatening overdose and self-discharge.

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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Delays in follow-up and welfare checks after self-discharge following a life-threatening drugs overdose
Wider context from the report
“2. Where a patient takes self-discharge following a life threatening drugs overdose, concerns arise around the timeliness of follow up/welfare checks, given the limitations of the service commissioned by the Local Authority. ”
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 Bury Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a suitable out-of-hours service for people with drug addiction problems
Wider context from the report
“1. The lack of a suitable out of hours service, resulting in an undue burden being placed upon the emergency services and the NHS (none of whom are best placed to deal with and support those with drug addiction problems). ”
Open source report

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised2

Failure to contact parents before closing a referral where no safeguarding or legal reason prevents contact

Failure to share safeguarding referral information and reasons with relevant third parties, services or agencies

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Concerns raised9

Inadequate and unsafe medicine administration training, supervision and audit processes

Inadequate and unsafe medicines policy

Inadequate and incomplete record keeping

Inadequate pre-admission assessment of care needs

Lack of a policy or protocol for observation and monitoring of service users

Failure to recognise deteriorating service users

Inadequate pre-admission risk assessment

Delays in seeking medical attention when service users deteriorate

Insufficient communication and handover during transfers of care

Concerns raised7

Failure to document carriageway defect condition during inspections

Lack of a duty-of-candour procedure for significant incidents

Unmarked potholes lacking paint markings

Failure to investigate carriageway defects below the 40mm threshold

Inconsistent application of the current highway-management procedure

Lack of an effective significant-incident investigation and learning procedure

Failure to repair carriageway defects at or above the 40mm threshold

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.6

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

Concerns raised1

Failure of toilet cubicle doors to permit safe access when an occupant is slumped forward

Concerns raised2

Delays in follow-up and welfare checks after self-discharge following a life-threatening drugs overdose

Lack of a suitable out-of-hours service for people with drug addiction problems

Actions described in response 1

Actions described in response 6

Respondent positions 4