Recipient

Partner of the deceased

Pin Request correction

First report 19 Feb 2015•Latest report 19 Feb 2015

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 Partner of the deceased linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Powys, Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys

    AI-generated summary

    Barrie Lewis · 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

    Barrie Lewis was found by his family hanging from a rope attached to a garage rafter on 31 August 2014. The inquest concluded that his death was suicide. Concerns included the absence of a specific risk assessment for suicidal ideation, poor communication between mental health services, no reliable system assigning responsibility for assistance, and a lack of clinical records of crisis-team contact.

    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 Partner of the deceased; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure crisis team responsibility for providing assistance

    Wider context from the report

    “[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) A clinical review was undertaken of the contact the deceased had with the mental health services in the days prior to his death and it was apparent from that review, and from the evidence heard that: a) That no risk assessment was undertaken to detail risks specifically associated with the deceased’s suicidal ideation which, on the evidence, would have assisted the crisis team in assessing his risk of suicide or self harm. b) There was little formal mechanism for communication between the mental health out patients department and the acute services which he accessed in the days prior to his death. c) There was no reliable system to ensure that a member of the crisis team took responsibility for providing assistance to the deceased – simply leaving the deceased to make his own telephone call to the appropriate department. d) No clinical recordings were made of the contact the deceased had with the crisis team (Crisis Resolution Home Treatment team) following his contact with them. ”
    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 Partner of the deceased; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to make clinical records of crisis team contact

    Wider context from the report

    “[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) A clinical review was undertaken of the contact the deceased had with the mental health services in the days prior to his death and it was apparent from that review, and from the evidence heard that: a) That no risk assessment was undertaken to detail risks specifically associated with the deceased’s suicidal ideation which, on the evidence, would have assisted the crisis team in assessing his risk of suicide or self harm. b) There was little formal mechanism for communication between the mental health out patients department and the acute services which he accessed in the days prior to his death. c) There was no reliable system to ensure that a member of the crisis team took responsibility for providing assistance to the deceased – simply leaving the deceased to make his own telephone call to the appropriate department. d) No clinical recordings were made of the contact the deceased had with the crisis team (Crisis Resolution Home Treatment team) following his contact with them. ”
    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 Partner of the deceased; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to undertake risk assessments specific to suicidal ideation

    Wider context from the report

    “[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) A clinical review was undertaken of the contact the deceased had with the mental health services in the days prior to his death and it was apparent from that review, and from the evidence heard that: a) That no risk assessment was undertaken to detail risks specifically associated with the deceased’s suicidal ideation which, on the evidence, would have assisted the crisis team in assessing his risk of suicide or self harm. b) There was little formal mechanism for communication between the mental health out patients department and the acute services which he accessed in the days prior to his death. c) There was no reliable system to ensure that a member of the crisis team took responsibility for providing assistance to the deceased – simply leaving the deceased to make his own telephone call to the appropriate department. d) No clinical recordings were made of the contact the deceased had with the crisis team (Crisis Resolution Home Treatment team) following his contact with them. ”
    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 Partner of the deceased; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a formal communication mechanism between mental health out-patient and acute services

    Wider context from the report

    “[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) A clinical review was undertaken of the contact the deceased had with the mental health services in the days prior to his death and it was apparent from that review, and from the evidence heard that: a) That no risk assessment was undertaken to detail risks specifically associated with the deceased’s suicidal ideation which, on the evidence, would have assisted the crisis team in assessing his risk of suicide or self harm. b) There was little formal mechanism for communication between the mental health out patients department and the acute services which he accessed in the days prior to his death. c) There was no reliable system to ensure that a member of the crisis team took responsibility for providing assistance to the deceased – simply leaving the deceased to make his own telephone call to the appropriate department. d) No clinical recordings were made of the contact the deceased had with the crisis team (Crisis Resolution Home Treatment team) following his contact with them. ”
    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