Recipient

Trafford Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service

Pin Request correction

First report 4 Sep 2013•Latest report 4 Sep 2013

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Healthcare site. 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 Trafford Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service 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 Stuart Irlam · 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 Stuart Irlam was suffering from severe depression and anxiety and had been discharged from the CHRTT while awaiting further contact from IAPT. On 13 November 2012, he hung himself from the banister at his home. The principal concern was that vulnerable patients could experience a feeling of abandonment and deterioration while waiting without a confirmed appointment or clear information about the next stage of treatment.

    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 Trafford Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure a known next appointment at discharge from CRHTT

    Wider context from the report

    “████████ Senior Clinical and Forensic Psychologist was engaged to conduct a Post Incident Review & Report. That report concluded at page 31 - "Putting the patient first - perceived gaps from the patient perspective" that a waiting time of 24 days between discharge from CRHTT and the first appointment with IAPT could not be construed as a delay. This issue arose at the Inquest hearing was the potential for a feeling of abandonment because of the discharge without any knowledge of how long it would be before the next contact; of having to wait for the next stage/step without knowing when that would be. Mrs Irlam was clear that her husband deteriorated over this period despite the close, and loving, support provided by her and their family. That her husband found this a most distressing and difficult time. Even if the General Panel do not consider a waiting time of 3 weeks plus to be a delay for someone with mental health issues I take the view that a waiting time of 2 weeks without knowing the next contact for help/treatment will be is not appropriate. My concern is for the welfare of other patients who will fall into this gap between treatments/counselling who, unlike Mr Irlam, do not have a close and supportive family and the effect on them. During the course of his evidence ████████ explained that the two organisations were working closer together administratively. He was not, however, able to respond to my line of enquiry as to why a patient could not be given an appointment with IAPT on discharge from CHRTT. My concern is this. It seems to me most important and appropriate that a vulnerable patient with mental health issues ought not to be exposed to a feeling of abandonment, likely to lead to a deterioration in their condition, and that they should (where possible) be given an appointment with IAPT on discharge from CHRTT, if that is the agreed next step. That would also deal with the issue that upon receipt of the awaited letter from IAPT the patient has to be proactive to engage the referral to IAPT. (1) That if a follow-up with or referral to IAPT (or any other organisation) is deemed appropriate upon discharge from CRHTT then such an appointment should be arranged before or upon discharge. (2) (3) ”
    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 Trafford Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure referral engagement without patient-initiated action

    Wider context from the report

    “████████ Senior Clinical and Forensic Psychologist was engaged to conduct a Post Incident Review & Report. That report concluded at page 31 - "Putting the patient first - perceived gaps from the patient perspective" that a waiting time of 24 days between discharge from CRHTT and the first appointment with IAPT could not be construed as a delay. This issue arose at the Inquest hearing was the potential for a feeling of abandonment because of the discharge without any knowledge of how long it would be before the next contact; of having to wait for the next stage/step without knowing when that would be. Mrs Irlam was clear that her husband deteriorated over this period despite the close, and loving, support provided by her and their family. That her husband found this a most distressing and difficult time. Even if the General Panel do not consider a waiting time of 3 weeks plus to be a delay for someone with mental health issues I take the view that a waiting time of 2 weeks without knowing the next contact for help/treatment will be is not appropriate. My concern is for the welfare of other patients who will fall into this gap between treatments/counselling who, unlike Mr Irlam, do not have a close and supportive family and the effect on them. During the course of his evidence ████████ explained that the two organisations were working closer together administratively. He was not, however, able to respond to my line of enquiry as to why a patient could not be given an appointment with IAPT on discharge from CHRTT. My concern is this. It seems to me most important and appropriate that a vulnerable patient with mental health issues ought not to be exposed to a feeling of abandonment, likely to lead to a deterioration in their condition, and that they should (where possible) be given an appointment with IAPT on discharge from CHRTT, if that is the agreed next step. That would also deal with the issue that upon receipt of the awaited letter from IAPT the patient has to be proactive to engage the referral to IAPT. (1) That if a follow-up with or referral to IAPT (or any other organisation) is deemed appropriate upon discharge from CRHTT then such an appointment should be arranged before or upon discharge. (2) (3) ”
    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