Recipient

Complex Spine London

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Jun 2025•Latest report 20 Jun 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Independent healthcare 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 Complex Spine London 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

    Mr Patrick Viles · 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 Patrick Viles died after taking an intentional overdose of medication at home, in the context of suicidal ideation and previous overdosing. The report raises concern that medication was prescribed after a psychologist had identified significant concerns about his mental health and the need for urgent psychiatric input. It could not be determined at the inquest where the medication used in the overdose had been obtained.

    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 Complex Spine London; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Prescribing medication despite significant mental health concerns

    Wider context from the report

    “You did note that you had referred Mr Viles to a psychologist, who consulted with him on 19/6/24 and raised concerns regarding the need for urgent psychiatric input, given his suicidal ideation. You also noted that you reviewed him after the psychologist’s input and concluded that he was not suitable for spinal cord stimulation. At the inquest it could not be determined from where Mr Viles had obtained the medication on which he overdosed. I therefore wrote a letter of concern to you, asking if you had prescribed medication (as had been suggested by the mental health trust’s evidence). You replied on 13/6/25, setting out that you had prescribed four weeks’ worth of ████████ on 28/6/24 (nine days after the psychologist’s consultation). I am concerned that you prescribed this medication after the psychologist you had referred Mr Viles to had raised significant concerns regarding his mental health. ”
    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