Moorbridge

Other public bodies · Pupil referral unit / alternative provision

Pin Request correction

First report 23 Jun 2025•Latest report 23 Jun 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
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Northumberland

    AI-generated summary

    REDACTED Deceased · 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

    The deceased was a 17-year-old girl with autism, anxiety, significant weight loss and extreme malnutrition who died in hospital on 5 May 2024 after cardiac output was lost following vomiting during preparation for insertion of a central venous line. The principal concerns included inadequate monitoring of her weight, lack of face-to-face assessments, failure to refer or escalate care appropriately, discharge from CAMHS without direct assessment, poor communication and unclear oversight of outpatient care.

    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to escalate care or make onward referral

    Wider context from the report

    “4.There was no in person assessment by dietetics or escalation of care The deceased was assessed via telephone on all occasions. I am concerned that whilst telephone assessments expedited contact there was no in person face to face assessment to record weight or to take and record clinical observations. At assessment on 2 January 2024, the deceased was not aware of her current weight. A weight history from the 20 November 2023 and a 2022 weight were noted. Her BMI was calculated as 17. On 5 March 2024 the deceased was reviewed by a specialist dietitian again by telephone. The deceased self-reported her weight to be 33kg with a calculated BMI of 13.4. The Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders (MEED) guidelines are used to identify at the earliest stage possible the appropriate care and treatment to be provided. It identifies BMI calculators in the green, amber and red. Red or high risk would be a BMI less than 13. The next specialist dietitian review took place on 26 April 2024, 2 weeks later than planned again by telephone. The self-reported weight was 31.8kg with a calculated BMI of 12.9 I am concerned that there was no escalation of care or onward referral, and I am concerned about staff’s understanding of the Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders (MEED) guidelines. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of in-person dietetic assessment recording weight and clinical observations

    Wider context from the report

    “4.There was no in person assessment by dietetics or escalation of care The deceased was assessed via telephone on all occasions. I am concerned that whilst telephone assessments expedited contact there was no in person face to face assessment to record weight or to take and record clinical observations. At assessment on 2 January 2024, the deceased was not aware of her current weight. A weight history from the 20 November 2023 and a 2022 weight were noted. Her BMI was calculated as 17. On 5 March 2024 the deceased was reviewed by a specialist dietitian again by telephone. The deceased self-reported her weight to be 33kg with a calculated BMI of 13.4. The Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders (MEED) guidelines are used to identify at the earliest stage possible the appropriate care and treatment to be provided. It identifies BMI calculators in the green, amber and red. Red or high risk would be a BMI less than 13. The next specialist dietitian review took place on 26 April 2024, 2 weeks later than planned again by telephone. The self-reported weight was 31.8kg with a calculated BMI of 12.9 I am concerned that there was no escalation of care or onward referral, and I am concerned about staff’s understanding of the Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders (MEED) guidelines. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient staff understanding of Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders guidelines

    Wider context from the report

    “4.There was no in person assessment by dietetics or escalation of care The deceased was assessed via telephone on all occasions. I am concerned that whilst telephone assessments expedited contact there was no in person face to face assessment to record weight or to take and record clinical observations. At assessment on 2 January 2024, the deceased was not aware of her current weight. A weight history from the 20 November 2023 and a 2022 weight were noted. Her BMI was calculated as 17. On 5 March 2024 the deceased was reviewed by a specialist dietitian again by telephone. The deceased self-reported her weight to be 33kg with a calculated BMI of 13.4. The Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders (MEED) guidelines are used to identify at the earliest stage possible the appropriate care and treatment to be provided. It identifies BMI calculators in the green, amber and red. Red or high risk would be a BMI less than 13. The next specialist dietitian review took place on 26 April 2024, 2 weeks later than planned again by telephone. The self-reported weight was 31.8kg with a calculated BMI of 12.9 I am concerned that there was no escalation of care or onward referral, and I am concerned about staff’s understanding of the Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders (MEED) guidelines. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Confusion and delayed cascading of Consultant-to-Consultant referral guidance

    Wider context from the report

    “2.There was no referral to gastroenterology I am concerned there is confusion as to the guidance on Consultant-to-Consultant referrals. The Consultant Physician wrote to the GP saying, "please monitor weight loss and refer into gastroenterology services for further assessment". The GP was aware of guidance regarding Consultant-to-Consultant Referrals that had been updated in October 2023 so that Consultants could and should be directly referring patients themselves to another speciality if there was a clinical reason to do so, rather than passing that task back to the GP. The Consultant Physician told me the guidance was not cascaded down to trust level until December 2023 after the Consultant Physician saw the deceased and that the final guidance has not yet been received. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of physical face-to-face monitoring of weight

    Wider context from the report

    “1.The deceased’s weight was not adequately monitored from November 2023. I am concerned there was no physical or face to face monitoring of the deceased’s weight from November 2023. I heard about the importance of physical eye to eye contact and examination on a face-to-face basis so that one can see evidence of the skin, properly see the patient’s face and when doing the height and weight asking for the removal some of their clothing to assess muscle mass. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of scrutiny of reluctance to engage and attend appointments

    Wider context from the report

    “3.The deceased was discharged from CAMHS in December 2023 without being seen in person, spoken to or weighed The second referral to CAMHs was following the Consultant Physician’s letter dated 20 November 2023. The request was “I would be grateful if you could see this young girl urgently for advice with regards to oral intake. She has lost weight over a number of months and clinical history as outlined above”. The deceased was offered an appointment in keeping with the 4-week national waiting timescale for CYP with an eating disorder. Contact was made with mum on 24 November and an appointment offered for 13 December 2023. During the call Mum told staff the deceased “hated CAMHS so might kick off and refuse to come”. Mum cancelled the appointment on 11 December 2023. CAMHS contacted mum by telephone on 12 December 2023. Mum said that the deceased was not aware that she had been referred to CAMHs, was not willing to attend. Again, there was no exploration as to why that was the case and no direct contact with the deceased. (a) I am concerned the deceased was discharged from CAMHs on 12 December 2023 without being seen face to face or spoken to directly. (b) I am concerned there was no scrutiny as to why the deceased was reluctant to engage and not attend appointments. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of one accessible system for weights, heights and BMI

    Wider context from the report

    “6.One records system - weights, heights and Body Mass Index (BMI) I heard that patient care records are held on different care record systems within the NHS which are not universally accessible to healthcare organisations, healthcare professionals or patients. I heard good examples of accessible records such as the Great North Care Record (GNCR) and SystmOne operated by some in Primary Care. I am concerned there is not one accessible system for weights, heights and BMI. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of clear accountable oversight of outpatient care

    Wider context from the report

    “6.Oversight of care in an Outpatient setting There is a lack of clarity regarding oversight of care in an outpatient setting. The Patient Safety Incident Investigation report identified that there was a lack of oversight of care. The early help assessment team were stepped down in 2022 and they may have been the appropriate team to maintain oversight of care. The SI report comments that the referrals between services were all appropriate but it was unclear who had oversight of all the care and that the investigation team felt that oversight was unclear and that arrangements around risk assessment escalation safeguarding and GP involvement could have been better through improved communication. I heard that in an inpatient setting there are key NHS standards set around what was described as “the name at the end of the bed” which healthcare professionals work within. I am concerned that in an outpatient setting there is no specific guidance regarding oversight of care within the NHS. No one department or clinician has overall responsibility or accountability. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide face-to-face or direct contact before CAMHS discharge

    Wider context from the report

    “3.The deceased was discharged from CAMHS in December 2023 without being seen in person, spoken to or weighed The second referral to CAMHs was following the Consultant Physician’s letter dated 20 November 2023. The request was “I would be grateful if you could see this young girl urgently for advice with regards to oral intake. She has lost weight over a number of months and clinical history as outlined above”. The deceased was offered an appointment in keeping with the 4-week national waiting timescale for CYP with an eating disorder. Contact was made with mum on 24 November and an appointment offered for 13 December 2023. During the call Mum told staff the deceased “hated CAMHS so might kick off and refuse to come”. Mum cancelled the appointment on 11 December 2023. CAMHS contacted mum by telephone on 12 December 2023. Mum said that the deceased was not aware that she had been referred to CAMHs, was not willing to attend. Again, there was no exploration as to why that was the case and no direct contact with the deceased. (a) I am concerned the deceased was discharged from CAMHs on 12 December 2023 without being seen face to face or spoken to directly. (b) I am concerned there was no scrutiny as to why the deceased was reluctant to engage and not attend appointments. ”
    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 Moorbridge; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to share clinically significant eating and weight information with an appropriate body

    Wider context from the report

    “5.The Passage of information/communication Communication: I heard about the importance of the passage of information. During the course of the inquest a witness was taken to the SEN chronology and an entry dated 1 March 2024 which refers to a conversation with the deceased’s mother on 29 February 2024 where she described the deceased having significant problems with her eating habits, losing weight and refusing to eat foods that would be good for her and put weight on her. I am concerned that this information was not shared to an appropriate body. ”
    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