Recipient

Stockport Integrated Care Partnership

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Jun 2023•Latest report 20 Jun 2023

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Health-system partnership. 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 Stockport Integrated Care Partnership linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Michael Brian Sullivan · 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

    Michael Brian Sullivan had schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, took lithium, and deteriorated at home before being admitted to Stepping Hill Hospital, where he was found to have pneumonia and lithium toxicity. He deteriorated despite treatment and died in hospital on 17 December 2022. The report raised concerns about delays between referrals to the Crisis Review Team and patient assessments, including uncertainty about referral processes, prioritisation and triage.

    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 Stockport Integrated Care Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays between Crisis Review Team referrals and patient assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence before the inquest was that Mr Sullivan was a vulnerable person with a complex mental health history. The inquest heard evidence that GPs could access a Crisis Review Team to assess patients such as Mr Sullivan. However, the evidence before the inquest was that there seemed to be delays between referrals and assessments. It was unclear if these were due to a lack of understanding by GPs on how the CRT could be used or how patients were prioritised within the CRT or a lack of effective triage by GPs before referral or the CRT following referral. In his case the concern was raised by his family on 13th December 2022 with the GP. The GP referred him to the CRT that day indicating he needed an assessment on 14th December 2023 for confusion following a fall and a possible UTI. At the assessment on 14th December 2023 at 11am Mr Sullivan was seriously unwell. ”
    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