Recipient

Family of Julia Macpherson

First report 1 Apr 2018•Latest report 1 Apr 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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 Family of Julia Macpherson linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South London

    AI-generated summary

    Julia Jane MacPherson · 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

    Julia Jane MacPherson, an informal patient of Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, suffered swallowing difficulties and collapsed in the community with food bolus and vomitus in her throat; resuscitation was unsuccessful. Concerns included failure to arrange or undertake a timely medical review, failure to assess her mental capacity after concerns about confusion, incomplete clinical records, and prescribing and consent processes for off-licence medication. The inquest recorded the medical cause of death as upper airway obstruction associated with swallowing difficulties secondary to medication-related extrapyramidal symptoms.

    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 Family of Julia Macpherson; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to follow NICE guidelines for prescribing off-licence medicines

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It was agreed that Julia usually had a comprehensive understanding of her mental health and medications and was an informal patient consenting to her care and treatment. Quetiapine had been stopped due to concerns about seizures. A trial of Clozapine was commenced on 18 January 2016, prescribed off licence and Julia and her family raised concerns with her clinicians who had made adjustments to her dose but she continued to have experience side effects that she found difficult to tolerate. She had a home visit with her mother on Sunday 15th May and despite usually being self-caring, she needed full assistance in her care and she spent most of the visit in bed. Significant concerns were raised by her mother that Julia was not well enough to be taken out, that she had no comprehension of her medication, that she appeared confused and that her memory and speech appeared to be affected. Her mother left a note with nursing staff requesting an immediate medical review by her Responsible Clinician as she had no other way of contacting him, however: (a) This review did not take place and her Responsible Clinician did not see this note until the inquest. (b) Julia was not reviewed on 16th May. (c) A formal review of her mental capacity to consent to her treatment did not take place following concerns raised by her mother on 15th May or when Hospital staff noted that Julia was very confused on 17th May. (2) Evidence at the inquest was that hospital staff did not regularly read clinical and nursing entries in patient medical records. (3) Medical records concerning discussions about her consent to prescription off licence medication for her mental health were missing or incomplete even though numerous concerns about her Clozapine and polypharmacy, over sedation and confusion were raised. (4) NICE guidelines for the prescription of off licenced medicines was not followed. (5) Adult patients sectioned under the Mental Health Act have statutory forms that lists all psychiatric medication that can be administered either on T2 (patient consents) or on T3 (patient does not consent) which requires the approval of a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor. There is no statutory process for recording consent to medication for informal patients. ”
    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 Family of Julia Macpherson; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide timely clinical review following reported deterioration

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It was agreed that Julia usually had a comprehensive understanding of her mental health and medications and was an informal patient consenting to her care and treatment. Quetiapine had been stopped due to concerns about seizures. A trial of Clozapine was commenced on 18 January 2016, prescribed off licence and Julia and her family raised concerns with her clinicians who had made adjustments to her dose but she continued to have experience side effects that she found difficult to tolerate. She had a home visit with her mother on Sunday 15th May and despite usually being self-caring, she needed full assistance in her care and she spent most of the visit in bed. Significant concerns were raised by her mother that Julia was not well enough to be taken out, that she had no comprehension of her medication, that she appeared confused and that her memory and speech appeared to be affected. Her mother left a note with nursing staff requesting an immediate medical review by her Responsible Clinician as she had no other way of contacting him, however: (a) This review did not take place and her Responsible Clinician did not see this note until the inquest. (b) Julia was not reviewed on 16th May. (c) A formal review of her mental capacity to consent to her treatment did not take place following concerns raised by her mother on 15th May or when Hospital staff noted that Julia was very confused on 17th May. (2) Evidence at the inquest was that hospital staff did not regularly read clinical and nursing entries in patient medical records. (3) Medical records concerning discussions about her consent to prescription off licence medication for her mental health were missing or incomplete even though numerous concerns about her Clozapine and polypharmacy, over sedation and confusion were raised. (4) NICE guidelines for the prescription of off licenced medicines was not followed. (5) Adult patients sectioned under the Mental Health Act have statutory forms that lists all psychiatric medication that can be administered either on T2 (patient consents) or on T3 (patient does not consent) which requires the approval of a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor. There is no statutory process for recording consent to medication for informal patients. ”
    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 Family of Julia Macpherson; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of hospital staff to regularly read clinical and nursing entries in patient medical records

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It was agreed that Julia usually had a comprehensive understanding of her mental health and medications and was an informal patient consenting to her care and treatment. Quetiapine had been stopped due to concerns about seizures. A trial of Clozapine was commenced on 18 January 2016, prescribed off licence and Julia and her family raised concerns with her clinicians who had made adjustments to her dose but she continued to have experience side effects that she found difficult to tolerate. She had a home visit with her mother on Sunday 15th May and despite usually being self-caring, she needed full assistance in her care and she spent most of the visit in bed. Significant concerns were raised by her mother that Julia was not well enough to be taken out, that she had no comprehension of her medication, that she appeared confused and that her memory and speech appeared to be affected. Her mother left a note with nursing staff requesting an immediate medical review by her Responsible Clinician as she had no other way of contacting him, however: (a) This review did not take place and her Responsible Clinician did not see this note until the inquest. (b) Julia was not reviewed on 16th May. (c) A formal review of her mental capacity to consent to her treatment did not take place following concerns raised by her mother on 15th May or when Hospital staff noted that Julia was very confused on 17th May. (2) Evidence at the inquest was that hospital staff did not regularly read clinical and nursing entries in patient medical records. (3) Medical records concerning discussions about her consent to prescription off licence medication for her mental health were missing or incomplete even though numerous concerns about her Clozapine and polypharmacy, over sedation and confusion were raised. (4) NICE guidelines for the prescription of off licenced medicines was not followed. (5) Adult patients sectioned under the Mental Health Act have statutory forms that lists all psychiatric medication that can be administered either on T2 (patient consents) or on T3 (patient does not consent) which requires the approval of a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor. There is no statutory process for recording consent to medication for informal patients. ”
    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 Family of Julia Macpherson; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to formally review mental capacity to consent to treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It was agreed that Julia usually had a comprehensive understanding of her mental health and medications and was an informal patient consenting to her care and treatment. Quetiapine had been stopped due to concerns about seizures. A trial of Clozapine was commenced on 18 January 2016, prescribed off licence and Julia and her family raised concerns with her clinicians who had made adjustments to her dose but she continued to have experience side effects that she found difficult to tolerate. She had a home visit with her mother on Sunday 15th May and despite usually being self-caring, she needed full assistance in her care and she spent most of the visit in bed. Significant concerns were raised by her mother that Julia was not well enough to be taken out, that she had no comprehension of her medication, that she appeared confused and that her memory and speech appeared to be affected. Her mother left a note with nursing staff requesting an immediate medical review by her Responsible Clinician as she had no other way of contacting him, however: (a) This review did not take place and her Responsible Clinician did not see this note until the inquest. (b) Julia was not reviewed on 16th May. (c) A formal review of her mental capacity to consent to her treatment did not take place following concerns raised by her mother on 15th May or when Hospital staff noted that Julia was very confused on 17th May. (2) Evidence at the inquest was that hospital staff did not regularly read clinical and nursing entries in patient medical records. (3) Medical records concerning discussions about her consent to prescription off licence medication for her mental health were missing or incomplete even though numerous concerns about her Clozapine and polypharmacy, over sedation and confusion were raised. (4) NICE guidelines for the prescription of off licenced medicines was not followed. (5) Adult patients sectioned under the Mental Health Act have statutory forms that lists all psychiatric medication that can be administered either on T2 (patient consents) or on T3 (patient does not consent) which requires the approval of a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor. There is no statutory process for recording consent to medication for informal patients. ”
    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 Family of Julia Macpherson; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of a statutory process for recording informal patients' consent to medication

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It was agreed that Julia usually had a comprehensive understanding of her mental health and medications and was an informal patient consenting to her care and treatment. Quetiapine had been stopped due to concerns about seizures. A trial of Clozapine was commenced on 18 January 2016, prescribed off licence and Julia and her family raised concerns with her clinicians who had made adjustments to her dose but she continued to have experience side effects that she found difficult to tolerate. She had a home visit with her mother on Sunday 15th May and despite usually being self-caring, she needed full assistance in her care and she spent most of the visit in bed. Significant concerns were raised by her mother that Julia was not well enough to be taken out, that she had no comprehension of her medication, that she appeared confused and that her memory and speech appeared to be affected. Her mother left a note with nursing staff requesting an immediate medical review by her Responsible Clinician as she had no other way of contacting him, however: (a) This review did not take place and her Responsible Clinician did not see this note until the inquest. (b) Julia was not reviewed on 16th May. (c) A formal review of her mental capacity to consent to her treatment did not take place following concerns raised by her mother on 15th May or when Hospital staff noted that Julia was very confused on 17th May. (2) Evidence at the inquest was that hospital staff did not regularly read clinical and nursing entries in patient medical records. (3) Medical records concerning discussions about her consent to prescription off licence medication for her mental health were missing or incomplete even though numerous concerns about her Clozapine and polypharmacy, over sedation and confusion were raised. (4) NICE guidelines for the prescription of off licenced medicines was not followed. (5) Adult patients sectioned under the Mental Health Act have statutory forms that lists all psychiatric medication that can be administered either on T2 (patient consents) or on T3 (patient does not consent) which requires the approval of a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor. There is no statutory process for recording consent to medication for informal patients. ”
    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 Family of Julia Macpherson; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Incomplete or missing records of consent discussions for off-licence mental health medication

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It was agreed that Julia usually had a comprehensive understanding of her mental health and medications and was an informal patient consenting to her care and treatment. Quetiapine had been stopped due to concerns about seizures. A trial of Clozapine was commenced on 18 January 2016, prescribed off licence and Julia and her family raised concerns with her clinicians who had made adjustments to her dose but she continued to have experience side effects that she found difficult to tolerate. She had a home visit with her mother on Sunday 15th May and despite usually being self-caring, she needed full assistance in her care and she spent most of the visit in bed. Significant concerns were raised by her mother that Julia was not well enough to be taken out, that she had no comprehension of her medication, that she appeared confused and that her memory and speech appeared to be affected. Her mother left a note with nursing staff requesting an immediate medical review by her Responsible Clinician as she had no other way of contacting him, however: (a) This review did not take place and her Responsible Clinician did not see this note until the inquest. (b) Julia was not reviewed on 16th May. (c) A formal review of her mental capacity to consent to her treatment did not take place following concerns raised by her mother on 15th May or when Hospital staff noted that Julia was very confused on 17th May. (2) Evidence at the inquest was that hospital staff did not regularly read clinical and nursing entries in patient medical records. (3) Medical records concerning discussions about her consent to prescription off licence medication for her mental health were missing or incomplete even though numerous concerns about her Clozapine and polypharmacy, over sedation and confusion were raised. (4) NICE guidelines for the prescription of off licenced medicines was not followed. (5) Adult patients sectioned under the Mental Health Act have statutory forms that lists all psychiatric medication that can be administered either on T2 (patient consents) or on T3 (patient does not consent) which requires the approval of a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor. There is no statutory process for recording consent to medication for informal patients. ”
    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