PFD report

David Joyce · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jun 2026•Devon, Plymouth and Torbay

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised5

  1. Failure to seek specialist guidance on medication appropriateness in complex mental health presentations
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
  2. Failure to provide routine follow-up after mental health consultation
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up
  3. Delays in amending medication when presenting symptoms indicate a different treatment
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reassess treatment options when clinically indicated
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Action

    Review records, clinical actions, and processes for supporting, referring, and liaising about high-risk patients with mental health teams.

    Stated by The Foxhayes SurgeryStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 August 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Initial presentations involving difficult life events are not typically referred to specialist services because consultation support and safety-netting are considered sufficient.

    Stated by The Foxhayes SurgeryExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to seek specialist guidance on medication appropriateness in complex mental health presentations

Wider context from the report

“2. David presented to the GP surgery again on 26th June. He reported that he’d had a ‘severe mental breakdown due to ongoing psychosis’ which had resulted in him taking an overdose and being arrested for being in possession of a weapon, and he’d been advised by Police mental health services to contact his GP for support. When he spoke to the GP, David informed her that he considered his most significant issue currently was depression, and said that he had not taken Quetiapine since he moved to Exeter some years previously. Despite the fact that David indicated depression to be his overriding concern, he had taken an overdose which resulted in hospital attendance, and he’d not taken Quetiapine for some time (and seemingly for different symptoms), the GP prescribed Quetiapine, without seeking guidance or input from a psychiatrist or mental health professional about whether that was an appropriate medication in the circumstances. No routine follow up appears to have taken place following that consultation. The next communication does not occur until the GP is informed that there had been a further suicide attempt resulting in a Mental Health Act Assessment of David on 22nd August. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe medication prescribing.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide routine follow-up after mental health consultation

Wider context from the report

“2. David presented to the GP surgery again on 26th June. He reported that he’d had a ‘severe mental breakdown due to ongoing psychosis’ which had resulted in him taking an overdose and being arrested for being in possession of a weapon, and he’d been advised by Police mental health services to contact his GP for support. When he spoke to the GP, David informed her that he considered his most significant issue currently was depression, and said that he had not taken Quetiapine since he moved to Exeter some years previously. Despite the fact that David indicated depression to be his overriding concern, he had taken an overdose which resulted in hospital attendance, and he’d not taken Quetiapine for some time (and seemingly for different symptoms), the GP prescribed Quetiapine, without seeking guidance or input from a psychiatrist or mental health professional about whether that was an appropriate medication in the circumstances. No routine follow up appears to have taken place following that consultation. The next communication does not occur until the GP is informed that there had been a further suicide attempt resulting in a Mental Health Act Assessment of David on 22nd August. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Delays in amending medication when presenting symptoms indicate a different treatment

Wider context from the report

“3. On 31st August 2023, when a medication review was conducted, it was established that David needed a different medication given his presenting symptoms. This medication amendment therefore did not take place until 15 weeks after David had initially sought help from the GP. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reassess treatment options when clinically indicated.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to initiate follow-up after presentation with deteriorating mental health

Wider context from the report

“1. David first presented to the GP surgery on 16th May 2023, reporting a deterioration in his mental health. No follow up was initiated by the surgery despite David’s recorded past medical history of dissociated disorder, self-harm and suicide. There was no evidence that, on that occasion, there had been any consideration of referral to secondary or tertiary mental health services which may have been available to assist David and inform his care; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to recognise and respond to deteriorating mental health in service users; Failure to reliably follow up identified mental-health safety concerns.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to consider referral to secondary or tertiary mental health services

Wider context from the report

“1. David first presented to the GP surgery on 16th May 2023, reporting a deterioration in his mental health. No follow up was initiated by the surgery despite David’s recorded past medical history of dissociated disorder, self-harm and suicide. There was no evidence that, on that occasion, there had been any consideration of referral to secondary or tertiary mental health services which may have been available to assist David and inform his care; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable mental health referral pathways.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review records, clinical actions, and processes for supporting, referring, and liaising about high-risk patients with mental health teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having closely reviewed the medical records for David I sat down with the medical team at the practice to review his medical records and actions by the individual doctors and the practice. The consensus was the practice should have been more proactive on the 26th June when David represented making a formal referral to the Community Mental Health Team and possibly the CRISIS Team for urgent support given how David’s mental health had deteriorated in the 5 weeks prior to review. ████████ attempt to call and speak to ████████ following her review of David whilst in Police custody clearly caused a breakdown in the formal referral process for David at that time.”

Source location

Response from Foxhayes Surgery GP Practice
Page 4 · response
Published 21 August 2026

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Initial presentations involving difficult life events are not typically referred to specialist services because consultation support and safety-netting are considered sufficient.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We would not typically refer an individual onto secondary or tertiary services presenting initially who is experiencing difficult life events. We speak to a very large number of patients who are struggling with life events including separation from partners that typically need time to resolve. Patients need to feel heard, understood and supported and I think we have a duty to offer appropriate pragmatic advice to patients on managing difficult life events. We always safety net at the end of our consultations and discuss appropriate follow up and additional support should the individuals not be able to keep on top of their symptoms and problems.”

Source location

Response from Foxhayes Surgery GP Practice
Page 2 · response
Published 21 August 2026

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Mental health services retain responsibility for prescribing and antipsychotic dose changes when a patient is under specialist care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, had ████████, (a Senior Mental Health Practitioner) felt that David needed support from the Mental Health Team whom she works for I would have expected her to make that referral when she saw him on the 24th June. The practice felt there needs to be improved lines of communication between Primary Care and the Community Mental Health Team including consultants and Home Treatment Team for a patient who is currently under their care. Usually, the Mental Health Team take ownership and responsibility for prescribing and dose changes for anti-psychotic medication as they had for David.”

Source location

Response from Foxhayes Surgery GP Practice
Page 4 · response
Published 21 August 2026

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Conduct a significant event analysis of David’s case to identify ways to improve support for vulnerable patients.

    Stated by The Foxhayes SurgeryStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 August 2026.
  2. 2

    Complete Patient Safety Incident Response Framework training to assess practice against updated incident-response standards.

    Stated by The Foxhayes SurgeryStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 August 2026.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Conduct a significant event analysis of David’s case to identify ways to improve support for vulnerable patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Practice Manager has enrolled on a Patient Safety Incidence Response Framework Course so that we can review our practice against the updated patient safety incident response standards and understand how to respond proportionally to patient safety incidents, explore and understand the patient safety incident profiles. The practice is due to hold a significant event analysis in July of this year to review David’s case and explore ways to ensure that the practice is maximally supporting vulnerable patients such as David.”

Source location

Response from Foxhayes Surgery GP Practice
Page 5 · response
Published 21 August 2026

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Complete Patient Safety Incident Response Framework training to assess practice against updated incident-response standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Practice Manager has enrolled on a Patient Safety Incidence Response Framework Course so that we can review our practice against the updated patient safety incident response standards and understand how to respond proportionally to patient safety incidents, explore and understand the patient safety incident profiles. The practice is due to hold a significant event analysis in July of this year to review David’s case and explore ways to ensure that the practice is maximally supporting vulnerable patients such as David.”

Source location

Response from Foxhayes Surgery GP Practice
Page 5 · response
Published 21 August 2026

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026