Recipient

Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership

Pin Request correction

First report 8 Oct 2020•Latest report 8 Oct 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Other public body. 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 Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    May Adalaid Miller · 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

    May Adalaid Miller, aged 95, was attacked by another resident while asleep at Beech House Residential Care Home on 9 February 2020 and died from natural causes precipitated by the assault. The report raised concerns about the lack of safeguarding information sharing between agencies and care facilities, including the absence of a system to share information about the other resident’s risk factors.

    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 Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to obtain consent for disclosure of safeguarding information to other agencies

    Wider context from the report

    “In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of ████████. At no time was the family of Mr ████████ asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes. It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ████████’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible. Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller. ”
    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 Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unclear central point of contact for investigative agencies and care homes

    Wider context from the report

    “In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of ████████. At no time was the family of Mr ████████ asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes. It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ████████’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible. Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller. ”
    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 Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a system for sharing safeguarding information with care homes

    Wider context from the report

    “In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of ████████. At no time was the family of Mr ████████ asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes. It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ████████’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible. Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller. ”
    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 Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Information-sharing arrangements failing when a person is not admitted from a registered facility

    Wider context from the report

    “In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of ████████. At no time was the family of Mr ████████ asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes. It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ████████’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible. Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller. ”
    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