Epsom Hospital

Health and care · Healthcare site

Pin Request correction

First report 12 Jun 2018•Latest report 4 Aug 2025

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
2

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

  1. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Tracey Ostler · 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

    Tracey Ostler, who had severe Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder and a history of self-harm and overdoses, took an overdose and cut her wrists on 12 June 2023. After paramedics attended her home on 16 June following a further overdose, they left her there after deciding she had capacity to refuse hospital treatment; she was later found unconscious and died in hospital on 18 June 2023. The principal concerns were inadequate capacity assessment and clinical consultation, failures to share information and coordinate mental-health and ambulance care, the absence of multi-agency safety planning, and insufficient psychiatric hospital beds.

    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unclear legal authority for preventing psychiatric patients leaving the emergency department

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unavailability of appropriately trained mental health nurses for acute psychiatric patients

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unclear ultimate clinical responsibility for psychiatric patients in the emergency department

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Compromised emergency department capacity to meet physically ill patients' needs

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide appropriate multidisciplinary psychiatric ward-based care

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of psychiatric hospital beds resulting in prolonged emergency department detention

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to undertake thorough mental capacity assessments for life-threatening treatment decisions

    Wider context from the report

    “Training for Paramedics to undertake Capacity Assessments. Addressed to the Health and Care Professionals Council and South East Coast Ambulance Service 3. I found that the paramedics who attended Ms Ostler on the 16th June 2023, and assessed her capacity to refuse lifesaving treatment after taking a serious paracetamol overdose, failed to undertake a thorough capacity assessment. In particular, they failed to assess adequately whether she had the ability to weigh up the information being given to her. 4. Ms Ostler was recorded in written evidence provided by the more senior attending paramedic who attended as saying that she would not discuss why she wanted to die. A more senior paramedic, who reviewed that evidence for the purposes of the inquest, regarded the written evidence as demonstrating that the capacity assessment had been undertaken appropriately. 5. Neither the attending paramedic nor the reviewing paramedic appreciated that unless the patient was able to tell them why she had decided that she wanted to die, that she had not demonstrated to them how she had weighed up the information available to her. Therefore, a full capacity assessment could not be completed. 6. I am concerned that the training they had received, both whilst students and subsequently, had not been adequate to equip them to undertake adequate capacity assessments. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide lawful Mental Health Act detention safeguards and Responsible Clinician oversight

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate paramedic training for mental capacity assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “Training for Paramedics to undertake Capacity Assessments. Addressed to the Health and Care Professionals Council and South East Coast Ambulance Service 3. I found that the paramedics who attended Ms Ostler on the 16th June 2023, and assessed her capacity to refuse lifesaving treatment after taking a serious paracetamol overdose, failed to undertake a thorough capacity assessment. In particular, they failed to assess adequately whether she had the ability to weigh up the information being given to her. 4. Ms Ostler was recorded in written evidence provided by the more senior attending paramedic who attended as saying that she would not discuss why she wanted to die. A more senior paramedic, who reviewed that evidence for the purposes of the inquest, regarded the written evidence as demonstrating that the capacity assessment had been undertaken appropriately. 5. Neither the attending paramedic nor the reviewing paramedic appreciated that unless the patient was able to tell them why she had decided that she wanted to die, that she had not demonstrated to them how she had weighed up the information available to her. Therefore, a full capacity assessment could not be completed. 6. I am concerned that the training they had received, both whilst students and subsequently, had not been adequate to equip them to undertake adequate capacity assessments. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate and unavailable protocol for capacity assessments in life-threatening circumstances

    Wider context from the report

    “South East Coast Ambulance Service’s protocol on undertaking capacity assessments in relation to life threatening decisions. Addressed to the South East Coast Ambulance Service 7. The Trusts policy on Mental Capacity is being reviewed to improve articulation of how to assess mental capacity in life threatening circumstances. It is not yet available. I regarded the current policy as inadequate and remain concerned about this because I have not been able to review the revised document. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a system for joint ambulance and mental health emergency plans

    Wider context from the report

    “Multi Agency Safeguarding Plans Addressed to the Surrey and Borders Partnership Trust and South East Coast Ambulance Service 8. Ms Ostler suffered from a severe Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, this was a longstanding diagnosis, and the effects were well known to her mental health team. She was placed in the community on a Positive Risk Taking Plan. She presented a continuous and serious risk to herself in the community and was prone to impulsive acts of self harm. Ambulances were frequently required to attend her home after such acts. The disorder impacted her ability to make capacious decisions about her own care. 9. The independent expert consultant psychiatrist called at the inquest regarded it as good practice in these circumstances to have a joint plan in place, including liaison between the ambulance service and mental health teams, for dealing with emergencies. 10. No system currently exists in Surrey to create such plans. 11. The paramedics who attended Ms Ostler on the 16th June 2023 did not know she had a diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, nor that this such a diagnosis would be likely to affect her decision-making capacity because it made her more prone to be volatile and impulsive. 12. The psychiatric evidence was that she would be likely to lack capacity. 13. Paramedics assessing her lacked this vital information. In consequence, she was left at home to die. 14. I have not been provided with any Protocol between the services to ensure safety planning in these circumstances that would ensure that front line paramedics are made aware that they are dealing with a seriously unwell mental health patients who is at high risk living in the community. 15. I therefore remain concerned that such a death could occur again. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide frontline paramedics with vital mental health risk and capacity information

    Wider context from the report

    “Multi Agency Safeguarding Plans Addressed to the Surrey and Borders Partnership Trust and South East Coast Ambulance Service 8. Ms Ostler suffered from a severe Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, this was a longstanding diagnosis, and the effects were well known to her mental health team. She was placed in the community on a Positive Risk Taking Plan. She presented a continuous and serious risk to herself in the community and was prone to impulsive acts of self harm. Ambulances were frequently required to attend her home after such acts. The disorder impacted her ability to make capacious decisions about her own care. 9. The independent expert consultant psychiatrist called at the inquest regarded it as good practice in these circumstances to have a joint plan in place, including liaison between the ambulance service and mental health teams, for dealing with emergencies. 10. No system currently exists in Surrey to create such plans. 11. The paramedics who attended Ms Ostler on the 16th June 2023 did not know she had a diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, nor that this such a diagnosis would be likely to affect her decision-making capacity because it made her more prone to be volatile and impulsive. 12. The psychiatric evidence was that she would be likely to lack capacity. 13. Paramedics assessing her lacked this vital information. In consequence, she was left at home to die. 14. I have not been provided with any Protocol between the services to ensure safety planning in these circumstances that would ensure that front line paramedics are made aware that they are dealing with a seriously unwell mental health patients who is at high risk living in the community. 15. I therefore remain concerned that such a death could occur again. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unsuitable emergency department environment for psychiatric patients

    Wider context from the report

    “Lack of Psychiatric Hospital Beds in Surrey and arrangements for detaining patients assessed to require Mental Health Act section in the Emergency Department of Epsom General Hospital: , Addressed to Epsom General Hospital, Surrey and Borders Partnership , South West London Integrated Care Board and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1. I heard evidence that there is an acknowledged concern in Epsom General Hospital’s emergency department that patients with psychiatric presentations, who are assessed to require compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, are detained without being under section in the emergency department awaiting psychiatric beds. The longest wait by such a patient in these circumstances has been 6 weeks. There have been up to 10 psychiatric patients at any one time being held in the emergency department awaiting a psychiatric bed. 2. I remain concerned that there in no plan to stop this practice and that therefore: a.) Psychiatric patients in an acute state are being held in an unsuitable environment without access to appropriate ward based care under a multi-disciplinary psychiatric team. b.) One to one nursing is meant to be provided by mental health nurses however, there are not always available and emergency department staff who are not trained in mental health nursing provide the nursing to them. This reduces the number of nurses available for physical health care nursing and means nurses from the wrong discipline and experience are caring for acute psychiatric patients. c.) The emergency department environment is noisy and confusing and inimical to the health and recovery of psychiatric patients. d.) The patients cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 whilst in the emergency department. There is a significant risk that some of them are being detained unlawfully, without recourse to the legal safeguards provided by the Mental Health Act 1983. In addition, they do not have a Responsible Clinician. e.) Medical staff make decisions about how to prevent these patients leaving the department if they decide to leave, instructing security staff to prevent this, using powers said to derive under common law which I was told was a grey area. f.) The ability of the emergency department to fulfil the needs of their physically ill patients is significantly compromised by this arrangement. g.) There is an acknowledged risk that psychiatric patients being cared for in the emergency department are under the care of both medical and psychiatric teams which can impact decision making and obscure who has ultimate responsibility for the patient. ”
    Open source report

  2. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Rita Taylor · 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

    Rita Taylor was admitted to hospital with severe hyponatraemia in the context of diabetes insipidus and a pituitary adenoma, and died on 15 August 2017 after developing central pontine myelinolysis. The principal concerns were failures to appropriately monitor and manage her sodium levels and diabetes insipidus, including omission of desmopressin, inadequate fluid-balance assessment, insufficient documentation, and lack of a coherent management plan.

    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate clinical documentation for care continuity

    Wider context from the report

    “6. The documentation throughout Mrs Taylor’s admission until transfer to the high dependency unit was inadequate with no record of assessment or a coherent management plan in place to ensure appropriate care and continuity of that care for succeeding physicians to consider or to follow. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of consultant understanding of appropriate hyponatraemia management

    Wider context from the report

    “4. The apparent lack of understanding of the appropriate management of hyponatraemia by consultants whose care Mrs Taylor was under, despite two emergency consultant physicians having a specialist interest in endocrinology. Whilst some attempt was made to contact St George’s hospital this was not successfully followed through to assist them in their management. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the serious incident report to fulfil its learning and accuracy obligations

    Wider context from the report

    “7. As was acknowledged in Court, the SI report did not fulfil its obligations and it was agreed that it would be extensively re-written and re-presented to HM Coroner’s Court to more accurately reflect the circumstances of Mrs Taylor’s death and the learning points required to assist in preventing any future deaths. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to obtain appropriate specialist assistance for hyponatraemia management

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The failure to appropriately manage Mrs Taylor’s hyponatraemia by the on call consultant physician on the 31st July 2017 on the grounds that it was not his sphere of expertise. No contact was considered or made to someone who may have been able to assist leaving Mrs Taylor to languish overnight with no management plan in place and a lack of any meaningful documentation in her hospital notes. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to complete specialist consultation for hyponatraemia management

    Wider context from the report

    “4. The apparent lack of understanding of the appropriate management of hyponatraemia by consultants whose care Mrs Taylor was under, despite two emergency consultant physicians having a specialist interest in endocrinology. Whilst some attempt was made to contact St George’s hospital this was not successfully followed through to assist them in their management. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to follow recommended hyponatraemia monitoring and treatment guidelines

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The failure, at any time between the 31st July 2017 and 5th August 2017 to follow the national recommended guidelines for the management and treatment of hyponatraemia, in particular the need to measure serum sodium regularly and to limit the rate of rise of serum sodium to prevent complications. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to create a coherent plan for managing diabetes insipidus and related fluid balance

    Wider context from the report

    “3. The failure, at any time between the 31st July 2017 until the 6th August 2017 to create a coherent plan for the management of Mrs Taylors medical problems resulting in the failure to assess fluid balance or to reintroduce desmopressin, given a known diagnosis of diabetes insipidus on a background of a pituitary adenoma. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to apply appropriate treatment for increasing serum potassium levels

    Wider context from the report

    “5. The failure of an emergency consultant physician with an interest in endocrinology to understand that giving intravenous fluids with potassium is not an appropriate method to increase serum potassium levels, more so as Mrs Taylor at that time could eat and drink normally. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of meaningful documentation in hospital notes

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The failure to appropriately manage Mrs Taylor’s hyponatraemia by the on call consultant physician on the 31st July 2017 on the grounds that it was not his sphere of expertise. No contact was considered or made to someone who may have been able to assist leaving Mrs Taylor to languish overnight with no management plan in place and a lack of any meaningful documentation in her hospital notes. ”
    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 Epsom Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to establish a management plan for hyponatraemia

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The failure to appropriately manage Mrs Taylor’s hyponatraemia by the on call consultant physician on the 31st July 2017 on the grounds that it was not his sphere of expertise. No contact was considered or made to someone who may have been able to assist leaving Mrs Taylor to languish overnight with no management plan in place and a lack of any meaningful documentation in her hospital notes. ”
    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