Summary
Trends
Evidence
Reports, concerns and published responses Receiving a report does not make the recipient responsible for every concern in it. PFD Monitor does not verify whether stated actions happened.
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 100% Found for named reports
Concerns addressed 1 Across all linked responses
Stated actions 2 Described in responses
28 Sep 2017 Conall Patrick Gould · Prevention of Future Deaths report Birmingham and Solihull
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Failure to ensure that service users and carers receive follow-up appointment details on discharge View source
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
Action
Implement enhanced discharge documentation requiring written follow-up details, contact numbers, and agreed information for patients and carers.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Conall Patrick Gould · 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
Conall Patrick Gould died at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham on 13 February 2017 after behaving erratically and collapsing; the medical cause of death was recorded as ecstasy use. The report raised concerns that arrangements for his community mental health follow-up appointment after discharge were not communicated to him or his parents, and that the absence of a clear protocol or written confirmation created a risk that follow-up opportunities could be missed.
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 Northern Health and Social Care Trust; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure that service users and carers receive follow-up appointment details on discharge
Wider context from the report “1. At the time of discharge from Holywell Hospital on the 30th January 2017 Mr. Gould had been referred to the community mental health team for a 7 day review and had been given an appointment on the 2nd February 2017. There is no evidence in the Trust’s records that the time, date and location of this appointment was given to Conall or his parents.
2. The evidence of ████████ Consultant Psychiatrist, who saw Conall and his father on the 30th January 2017 was that he anticipated that the discharge nurse would tell Conall and his mother or father, as his carers, the date of his review at the point of discharge as this is the usual practice.
3. Mr. Gould, Conall’s father, gave evidence that not only were he and his wife not told verbally of the appointment nor were they given any written information about it: on a previous discharge from an inpatient stay at another Trust ████████ had been given a letter setting out the appointment arrangements for his son following discharge. Conall was 21 at the time of his discharge on the 30th January and his parents had taken a very active role in his care. If they had been aware of the appointment they would have made every effort to secure Conall’s attendance, as it was, believing there to be no plan for follow up, they did not prevent him from travelling to Birmingham for a period of rest with relatives (during which time he took the fatal overdose of MDMA).
4. The evidence of ████████ who conducted the RCA was that the Trust does not have a protocol or policy stipulating the arrangements for notifying services users and their carers of follow up arrangements on discharge and current practice does not require written confirmation of follow up arrangements to be given to the service user or their carers .
5. The system currently creates a risk that services users and their carers will not be aware of follow up appointments and therefore may not attend giving rise to a danger that opportunities to review the service user’s condition and treatment will be lost.
” 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 Implement enhanced discharge documentation requiring written follow-up details, contact numbers, and agreed information for patients and carers.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Trust has introduced into the Integrated Care Protocol (the in-patient clinical documentation record of the multi-disciplinary treatment team) a requirement for all patients, when being discharged from hospital, to receive written confirmation of their 7 day follow-up appointment with relevant telephone contact numbers if they require assistance in the immediate days following discharge. This protocol also directs that a relative/concerned other, identified by the patient, will also be provided with this written information when consent to do so has been given by the patient.”
Source location Conall-Patrick-Response Page 1 · response Published 28 September 2017
Open published response
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