Concerns raised 7 Failure to maintain follow-up contact and home visits after service withdrawal or missed review View source Failure to robustly and objectively investigate vulnerable adults' circumstances View source Failure to coordinate and share information across community care agencies View source Failure to respond to medication non-collection with a home assessment View source Failure to examine the full home environment during care visits View source Failure to identify and diagnose apparent dementia View source Failure to provide an urgent home assessment after a reported deterioration in health View source See 4 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
AI-generated summary
Joan Farran · 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
Joan Farran, who had multiple co-morbidities and was cared for by her adult son, died at home from bronchopneumonia due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Alzheimer’s disease. The report states that her death from a potentially treatable pneumonia was contributed to by neglect in obtaining medical support and treatment. Concerns included inadequate coordination and information-sharing between agencies, limited assessment of the home environment, withdrawal of community visits without replacement services, and the cancellation of a GP home visit without further follow-up.
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 South Tyneside Safeguarding Adults Board; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to maintain follow-up contact and home visits after service withdrawal or missed review
Wider context from the report “7. All of these visits appear to have been conducted in the deceased' bedroom and no visits were made to any other part of the house and particularly the living room, dining room, kitchen and back yard. Significantly it is these areas which were found to be excessively cluttered during the investigation by the Police, subsequent to the deceased' death.
8. The Inquest received evidence from an Environmental Health Office who gave evidence that the clutter within the home was at least 8 months old but acknowledged that because this was a criminal investigation, he did not asitwere dig too deep into the material present to identify exact dates as to the packaging and other detritus which was present.
9. The Community Matron was himself unwell in the period March to July 2012 and subsequently from July ceased further visits. No other external services appear to have visited this home between July and December 2012 to determine how the deceased was progressing.
10. There were concerns expressed by the General Practice and in particular by the Pharmacy who were dispensing the deceased' repeat prescriptions that there were instances of non-collection of the medication and indeed a review was carried out late in that year as to the nature of the medication the deceased needed. There was no further visit at that stage to the deceased' home however.
11. Having received a communication from the deceased' son, on the 7th December as to his mother's state of health the Community Matron did make direct contact with the practice in order to try and ensure an appointment was made. He was nonetheless of a view that at that juncture there should in fact be some urgent and immediate visit but the matter was left on the basis only of a home visit to be made on the Monday 10th December.
12. That visit was cancelled and no further contact was made with the deceased or visit made to the home by the practice or any other outside agency.
13. Any visit that was made at that juncture or indeed at any earlier juncture which sought to visit more extensively within the home would have had clearly demonstrated that all was not well in the care and management of the deceased by the son and indeed that the son himself as a carer, was incapable of meeting the needs of his mother and himself was suffering from chronic problems, in all probability alcoholism.
14. The opinion of the NeuroPathologist who examined the deceased' body was of the opinion that the deceased was suffering from established dementia and that that should have been apparent to those who had her care. It was undiagnosed. If the deceased had received even the basic of treatment during the week immediately before her death, there is every reason to believe the deceased' death from a treatable condition would have been avoided.
15. My concern on this occasion is that although there were at least three agencies actively engaged in the care of this lady , or called to review her care during the months preceding her death, there has been a failure to co-ordinate information available to them.
16. There is evidence that they have failed to appreciate or investigate more robustly and objectively circumstances of the deceased' situation ,to be easily put off by the deceased' own presentation in the case of the visit by Social Services early in 2012, reassured that others had apparently raised no issue and in the event were continuing to visit , when ultimately they chose to withdraw those services very soon after.
17. The complaint the daughter should have at least led to an opportunity to examine the living accommodation more fully and more pointedly to maintain some contact into the future months and not to rely on the result and conclusion of one single visit and in any event to maintain a co-ordinated overview between the Community Matron Services, the GP and Social Services.
18. This incident occurring as it has at or about the same time as Elizabeth and Robert Douthwaite ( 17th January 2013) highlights the need for a robust and co-ordinate approach between the several agencies working within the Community who may come into contact with individually vulnerable individuals within the community. The active sharing of information and staged reviews are an essential element leading to co-ordinated care strategies.
” 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 South Tyneside Safeguarding Adults Board; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to robustly and objectively investigate vulnerable adults' circumstances
Wider context from the report “7. All of these visits appear to have been conducted in the deceased' bedroom and no visits were made to any other part of the house and particularly the living room, dining room, kitchen and back yard. Significantly it is these areas which were found to be excessively cluttered during the investigation by the Police, subsequent to the deceased' death.
8. The Inquest received evidence from an Environmental Health Office who gave evidence that the clutter within the home was at least 8 months old but acknowledged that because this was a criminal investigation, he did not asitwere dig too deep into the material present to identify exact dates as to the packaging and other detritus which was present.
9. The Community Matron was himself unwell in the period March to July 2012 and subsequently from July ceased further visits. No other external services appear to have visited this home between July and December 2012 to determine how the deceased was progressing.
10. There were concerns expressed by the General Practice and in particular by the Pharmacy who were dispensing the deceased' repeat prescriptions that there were instances of non-collection of the medication and indeed a review was carried out late in that year as to the nature of the medication the deceased needed. There was no further visit at that stage to the deceased' home however.
11. Having received a communication from the deceased' son, on the 7th December as to his mother's state of health the Community Matron did make direct contact with the practice in order to try and ensure an appointment was made. He was nonetheless of a view that at that juncture there should in fact be some urgent and immediate visit but the matter was left on the basis only of a home visit to be made on the Monday 10th December.
12. That visit was cancelled and no further contact was made with the deceased or visit made to the home by the practice or any other outside agency.
13. Any visit that was made at that juncture or indeed at any earlier juncture which sought to visit more extensively within the home would have had clearly demonstrated that all was not well in the care and management of the deceased by the son and indeed that the son himself as a carer, was incapable of meeting the needs of his mother and himself was suffering from chronic problems, in all probability alcoholism.
14. The opinion of the NeuroPathologist who examined the deceased' body was of the opinion that the deceased was suffering from established dementia and that that should have been apparent to those who had her care. It was undiagnosed. If the deceased had received even the basic of treatment during the week immediately before her death, there is every reason to believe the deceased' death from a treatable condition would have been avoided.
15. My concern on this occasion is that although there were at least three agencies actively engaged in the care of this lady , or called to review her care during the months preceding her death, there has been a failure to co-ordinate information available to them.
16. There is evidence that they have failed to appreciate or investigate more robustly and objectively circumstances of the deceased' situation ,to be easily put off by the deceased' own presentation in the case of the visit by Social Services early in 2012, reassured that others had apparently raised no issue and in the event were continuing to visit , when ultimately they chose to withdraw those services very soon after.
17. The complaint the daughter should have at least led to an opportunity to examine the living accommodation more fully and more pointedly to maintain some contact into the future months and not to rely on the result and conclusion of one single visit and in any event to maintain a co-ordinated overview between the Community Matron Services, the GP and Social Services.
18. This incident occurring as it has at or about the same time as Elizabeth and Robert Douthwaite ( 17th January 2013) highlights the need for a robust and co-ordinate approach between the several agencies working within the Community who may come into contact with individually vulnerable individuals within the community. The active sharing of information and staged reviews are an essential element leading to co-ordinated care strategies.
” 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 South Tyneside Safeguarding Adults Board; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to coordinate and share information across community care agencies
Wider context from the report “7. All of these visits appear to have been conducted in the deceased' bedroom and no visits were made to any other part of the house and particularly the living room, dining room, kitchen and back yard. Significantly it is these areas which were found to be excessively cluttered during the investigation by the Police, subsequent to the deceased' death.
8. The Inquest received evidence from an Environmental Health Office who gave evidence that the clutter within the home was at least 8 months old but acknowledged that because this was a criminal investigation, he did not asitwere dig too deep into the material present to identify exact dates as to the packaging and other detritus which was present.
9. The Community Matron was himself unwell in the period March to July 2012 and subsequently from July ceased further visits. No other external services appear to have visited this home between July and December 2012 to determine how the deceased was progressing.
10. There were concerns expressed by the General Practice and in particular by the Pharmacy who were dispensing the deceased' repeat prescriptions that there were instances of non-collection of the medication and indeed a review was carried out late in that year as to the nature of the medication the deceased needed. There was no further visit at that stage to the deceased' home however.
11. Having received a communication from the deceased' son, on the 7th December as to his mother's state of health the Community Matron did make direct contact with the practice in order to try and ensure an appointment was made. He was nonetheless of a view that at that juncture there should in fact be some urgent and immediate visit but the matter was left on the basis only of a home visit to be made on the Monday 10th December.
12. That visit was cancelled and no further contact was made with the deceased or visit made to the home by the practice or any other outside agency.
13. Any visit that was made at that juncture or indeed at any earlier juncture which sought to visit more extensively within the home would have had clearly demonstrated that all was not well in the care and management of the deceased by the son and indeed that the son himself as a carer, was incapable of meeting the needs of his mother and himself was suffering from chronic problems, in all probability alcoholism.
14. The opinion of the NeuroPathologist who examined the deceased' body was of the opinion that the deceased was suffering from established dementia and that that should have been apparent to those who had her care. It was undiagnosed. If the deceased had received even the basic of treatment during the week immediately before her death, there is every reason to believe the deceased' death from a treatable condition would have been avoided.
15. My concern on this occasion is that although there were at least three agencies actively engaged in the care of this lady , or called to review her care during the months preceding her death, there has been a failure to co-ordinate information available to them.
16. There is evidence that they have failed to appreciate or investigate more robustly and objectively circumstances of the deceased' situation ,to be easily put off by the deceased' own presentation in the case of the visit by Social Services early in 2012, reassured that others had apparently raised no issue and in the event were continuing to visit , when ultimately they chose to withdraw those services very soon after.
17. The complaint the daughter should have at least led to an opportunity to examine the living accommodation more fully and more pointedly to maintain some contact into the future months and not to rely on the result and conclusion of one single visit and in any event to maintain a co-ordinated overview between the Community Matron Services, the GP and Social Services.
18. This incident occurring as it has at or about the same time as Elizabeth and Robert Douthwaite ( 17th January 2013) highlights the need for a robust and co-ordinate approach between the several agencies working within the Community who may come into contact with individually vulnerable individuals within the community. The active sharing of information and staged reviews are an essential element leading to co-ordinated care strategies.
” 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 South Tyneside Safeguarding Adults Board; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to respond to medication non-collection with a home assessment
Wider context from the report “7. All of these visits appear to have been conducted in the deceased' bedroom and no visits were made to any other part of the house and particularly the living room, dining room, kitchen and back yard. Significantly it is these areas which were found to be excessively cluttered during the investigation by the Police, subsequent to the deceased' death.
8. The Inquest received evidence from an Environmental Health Office who gave evidence that the clutter within the home was at least 8 months old but acknowledged that because this was a criminal investigation, he did not asitwere dig too deep into the material present to identify exact dates as to the packaging and other detritus which was present.
9. The Community Matron was himself unwell in the period March to July 2012 and subsequently from July ceased further visits. No other external services appear to have visited this home between July and December 2012 to determine how the deceased was progressing.
10. There were concerns expressed by the General Practice and in particular by the Pharmacy who were dispensing the deceased' repeat prescriptions that there were instances of non-collection of the medication and indeed a review was carried out late in that year as to the nature of the medication the deceased needed. There was no further visit at that stage to the deceased' home however.
11. Having received a communication from the deceased' son, on the 7th December as to his mother's state of health the Community Matron did make direct contact with the practice in order to try and ensure an appointment was made. He was nonetheless of a view that at that juncture there should in fact be some urgent and immediate visit but the matter was left on the basis only of a home visit to be made on the Monday 10th December.
12. That visit was cancelled and no further contact was made with the deceased or visit made to the home by the practice or any other outside agency.
13. Any visit that was made at that juncture or indeed at any earlier juncture which sought to visit more extensively within the home would have had clearly demonstrated that all was not well in the care and management of the deceased by the son and indeed that the son himself as a carer, was incapable of meeting the needs of his mother and himself was suffering from chronic problems, in all probability alcoholism.
14. The opinion of the NeuroPathologist who examined the deceased' body was of the opinion that the deceased was suffering from established dementia and that that should have been apparent to those who had her care. It was undiagnosed. If the deceased had received even the basic of treatment during the week immediately before her death, there is every reason to believe the deceased' death from a treatable condition would have been avoided.
15. My concern on this occasion is that although there were at least three agencies actively engaged in the care of this lady , or called to review her care during the months preceding her death, there has been a failure to co-ordinate information available to them.
16. There is evidence that they have failed to appreciate or investigate more robustly and objectively circumstances of the deceased' situation ,to be easily put off by the deceased' own presentation in the case of the visit by Social Services early in 2012, reassured that others had apparently raised no issue and in the event were continuing to visit , when ultimately they chose to withdraw those services very soon after.
17. The complaint the daughter should have at least led to an opportunity to examine the living accommodation more fully and more pointedly to maintain some contact into the future months and not to rely on the result and conclusion of one single visit and in any event to maintain a co-ordinated overview between the Community Matron Services, the GP and Social Services.
18. This incident occurring as it has at or about the same time as Elizabeth and Robert Douthwaite ( 17th January 2013) highlights the need for a robust and co-ordinate approach between the several agencies working within the Community who may come into contact with individually vulnerable individuals within the community. The active sharing of information and staged reviews are an essential element leading to co-ordinated care strategies.
” 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 South Tyneside Safeguarding Adults Board; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to examine the full home environment during care visits
Wider context from the report “7. All of these visits appear to have been conducted in the deceased' bedroom and no visits were made to any other part of the house and particularly the living room, dining room, kitchen and back yard. Significantly it is these areas which were found to be excessively cluttered during the investigation by the Police, subsequent to the deceased' death.
8. The Inquest received evidence from an Environmental Health Office who gave evidence that the clutter within the home was at least 8 months old but acknowledged that because this was a criminal investigation, he did not asitwere dig too deep into the material present to identify exact dates as to the packaging and other detritus which was present.
9. The Community Matron was himself unwell in the period March to July 2012 and subsequently from July ceased further visits. No other external services appear to have visited this home between July and December 2012 to determine how the deceased was progressing.
10. There were concerns expressed by the General Practice and in particular by the Pharmacy who were dispensing the deceased' repeat prescriptions that there were instances of non-collection of the medication and indeed a review was carried out late in that year as to the nature of the medication the deceased needed. There was no further visit at that stage to the deceased' home however.
11. Having received a communication from the deceased' son, on the 7th December as to his mother's state of health the Community Matron did make direct contact with the practice in order to try and ensure an appointment was made. He was nonetheless of a view that at that juncture there should in fact be some urgent and immediate visit but the matter was left on the basis only of a home visit to be made on the Monday 10th December.
12. That visit was cancelled and no further contact was made with the deceased or visit made to the home by the practice or any other outside agency.
13. Any visit that was made at that juncture or indeed at any earlier juncture which sought to visit more extensively within the home would have had clearly demonstrated that all was not well in the care and management of the deceased by the son and indeed that the son himself as a carer, was incapable of meeting the needs of his mother and himself was suffering from chronic problems, in all probability alcoholism.
14. The opinion of the NeuroPathologist who examined the deceased' body was of the opinion that the deceased was suffering from established dementia and that that should have been apparent to those who had her care. It was undiagnosed. If the deceased had received even the basic of treatment during the week immediately before her death, there is every reason to believe the deceased' death from a treatable condition would have been avoided.
15. My concern on this occasion is that although there were at least three agencies actively engaged in the care of this lady , or called to review her care during the months preceding her death, there has been a failure to co-ordinate information available to them.
16. There is evidence that they have failed to appreciate or investigate more robustly and objectively circumstances of the deceased' situation ,to be easily put off by the deceased' own presentation in the case of the visit by Social Services early in 2012, reassured that others had apparently raised no issue and in the event were continuing to visit , when ultimately they chose to withdraw those services very soon after.
17. The complaint the daughter should have at least led to an opportunity to examine the living accommodation more fully and more pointedly to maintain some contact into the future months and not to rely on the result and conclusion of one single visit and in any event to maintain a co-ordinated overview between the Community Matron Services, the GP and Social Services.
18. This incident occurring as it has at or about the same time as Elizabeth and Robert Douthwaite ( 17th January 2013) highlights the need for a robust and co-ordinate approach between the several agencies working within the Community who may come into contact with individually vulnerable individuals within the community. The active sharing of information and staged reviews are an essential element leading to co-ordinated care strategies.
” 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 South Tyneside Safeguarding Adults Board; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to identify and diagnose apparent dementia
Wider context from the report “7. All of these visits appear to have been conducted in the deceased' bedroom and no visits were made to any other part of the house and particularly the living room, dining room, kitchen and back yard. Significantly it is these areas which were found to be excessively cluttered during the investigation by the Police, subsequent to the deceased' death.
8. The Inquest received evidence from an Environmental Health Office who gave evidence that the clutter within the home was at least 8 months old but acknowledged that because this was a criminal investigation, he did not asitwere dig too deep into the material present to identify exact dates as to the packaging and other detritus which was present.
9. The Community Matron was himself unwell in the period March to July 2012 and subsequently from July ceased further visits. No other external services appear to have visited this home between July and December 2012 to determine how the deceased was progressing.
10. There were concerns expressed by the General Practice and in particular by the Pharmacy who were dispensing the deceased' repeat prescriptions that there were instances of non-collection of the medication and indeed a review was carried out late in that year as to the nature of the medication the deceased needed. There was no further visit at that stage to the deceased' home however.
11. Having received a communication from the deceased' son, on the 7th December as to his mother's state of health the Community Matron did make direct contact with the practice in order to try and ensure an appointment was made. He was nonetheless of a view that at that juncture there should in fact be some urgent and immediate visit but the matter was left on the basis only of a home visit to be made on the Monday 10th December.
12. That visit was cancelled and no further contact was made with the deceased or visit made to the home by the practice or any other outside agency.
13. Any visit that was made at that juncture or indeed at any earlier juncture which sought to visit more extensively within the home would have had clearly demonstrated that all was not well in the care and management of the deceased by the son and indeed that the son himself as a carer, was incapable of meeting the needs of his mother and himself was suffering from chronic problems, in all probability alcoholism.
14. The opinion of the NeuroPathologist who examined the deceased' body was of the opinion that the deceased was suffering from established dementia and that that should have been apparent to those who had her care. It was undiagnosed. If the deceased had received even the basic of treatment during the week immediately before her death, there is every reason to believe the deceased' death from a treatable condition would have been avoided.
15. My concern on this occasion is that although there were at least three agencies actively engaged in the care of this lady , or called to review her care during the months preceding her death, there has been a failure to co-ordinate information available to them.
16. There is evidence that they have failed to appreciate or investigate more robustly and objectively circumstances of the deceased' situation ,to be easily put off by the deceased' own presentation in the case of the visit by Social Services early in 2012, reassured that others had apparently raised no issue and in the event were continuing to visit , when ultimately they chose to withdraw those services very soon after.
17. The complaint the daughter should have at least led to an opportunity to examine the living accommodation more fully and more pointedly to maintain some contact into the future months and not to rely on the result and conclusion of one single visit and in any event to maintain a co-ordinated overview between the Community Matron Services, the GP and Social Services.
18. This incident occurring as it has at or about the same time as Elizabeth and Robert Douthwaite ( 17th January 2013) highlights the need for a robust and co-ordinate approach between the several agencies working within the Community who may come into contact with individually vulnerable individuals within the community. The active sharing of information and staged reviews are an essential element leading to co-ordinated care strategies.
” 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 South Tyneside Safeguarding Adults Board; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide an urgent home assessment after a reported deterioration in health
Wider context from the report “7. All of these visits appear to have been conducted in the deceased' bedroom and no visits were made to any other part of the house and particularly the living room, dining room, kitchen and back yard. Significantly it is these areas which were found to be excessively cluttered during the investigation by the Police, subsequent to the deceased' death.
8. The Inquest received evidence from an Environmental Health Office who gave evidence that the clutter within the home was at least 8 months old but acknowledged that because this was a criminal investigation, he did not asitwere dig too deep into the material present to identify exact dates as to the packaging and other detritus which was present.
9. The Community Matron was himself unwell in the period March to July 2012 and subsequently from July ceased further visits. No other external services appear to have visited this home between July and December 2012 to determine how the deceased was progressing.
10. There were concerns expressed by the General Practice and in particular by the Pharmacy who were dispensing the deceased' repeat prescriptions that there were instances of non-collection of the medication and indeed a review was carried out late in that year as to the nature of the medication the deceased needed. There was no further visit at that stage to the deceased' home however.
11. Having received a communication from the deceased' son, on the 7th December as to his mother's state of health the Community Matron did make direct contact with the practice in order to try and ensure an appointment was made. He was nonetheless of a view that at that juncture there should in fact be some urgent and immediate visit but the matter was left on the basis only of a home visit to be made on the Monday 10th December.
12. That visit was cancelled and no further contact was made with the deceased or visit made to the home by the practice or any other outside agency.
13. Any visit that was made at that juncture or indeed at any earlier juncture which sought to visit more extensively within the home would have had clearly demonstrated that all was not well in the care and management of the deceased by the son and indeed that the son himself as a carer, was incapable of meeting the needs of his mother and himself was suffering from chronic problems, in all probability alcoholism.
14. The opinion of the NeuroPathologist who examined the deceased' body was of the opinion that the deceased was suffering from established dementia and that that should have been apparent to those who had her care. It was undiagnosed. If the deceased had received even the basic of treatment during the week immediately before her death, there is every reason to believe the deceased' death from a treatable condition would have been avoided.
15. My concern on this occasion is that although there were at least three agencies actively engaged in the care of this lady , or called to review her care during the months preceding her death, there has been a failure to co-ordinate information available to them.
16. There is evidence that they have failed to appreciate or investigate more robustly and objectively circumstances of the deceased' situation ,to be easily put off by the deceased' own presentation in the case of the visit by Social Services early in 2012, reassured that others had apparently raised no issue and in the event were continuing to visit , when ultimately they chose to withdraw those services very soon after.
17. The complaint the daughter should have at least led to an opportunity to examine the living accommodation more fully and more pointedly to maintain some contact into the future months and not to rely on the result and conclusion of one single visit and in any event to maintain a co-ordinated overview between the Community Matron Services, the GP and Social Services.
18. This incident occurring as it has at or about the same time as Elizabeth and Robert Douthwaite ( 17th January 2013) highlights the need for a robust and co-ordinate approach between the several agencies working within the Community who may come into contact with individually vulnerable individuals within the community. The active sharing of information and staged reviews are an essential element leading to co-ordinated care strategies.
” Open source report
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations