PFD report

Stephen Anthony MAGUIRE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 May 2021•Birmingham and Solihull

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised2

  1. Failure to ensure staff awareness and training on the PIT alarm charging policy
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable personal emergency alarms for people requiring assistance
  2. Failure to ensure PIT alarms are charged and operational
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable personal emergency alarms for people requiring assistance
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.3

  1. Action

    Operate a security lead role each shift to check, issue, replace, recover, record and charge PIT alarms.

    Stated by Options for CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 May 2021.
  2. Action

    Reinforce the PIT alarm procedures and security lead arrangements through staff meetings.

    Stated by Options for CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2021.
  3. Action

    Use clinical staff supervision sessions to reinforce PIT alarm fault reporting, replacement access, security lead responsibilities and alarm testing.

    Stated by Options for CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Existing changes at Dartmouth House are considered sufficient to meet the Regulation 28 requirements concerning PIT alarms and staff training.

    Stated by Options for CareExisting 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 ensure staff awareness and training on the PIT alarm charging policy

Wider context from the report

“2. I heard evidence that ████████ was an agency worker working for Options for Care at the time of Mr Stephen Anthony MAGUIRE's death, and there was a suspicion (but which could not be proven) that they may have either been unaware of the charging system, or made a simple error. Although not causative in Mr Stephen Anthony MAGUIRE's death, if members of staff (both full time and agency workers alike) are unaware of the charging policy, or are not trained and reminded in the same, there is the risk of death if a member of staff is unable to utilise their own PIT alarm in an emergency due to the same not being charged. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable personal emergency alarms for people requiring assistance.

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 ensure PIT alarms are charged and operational

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard evidence that the PIT alarm used by staff member, ████████, did not work when pressed. I heard evidence this was alarm was checked after the incident and found to not have been charged. I heard evidence from the ████████ ████████ that Options for Care Limited have a system whereby it is the night staffs’ responsibility to check and charge the PIT alarms overnight, and it is the responsibility of the day care staff to check that their PIT alarms are charged and operational when they come on shift in the morning ("the charging system"). Somehow, this charging system failed. Although not causative in Mr Stephen Anthony MAGUIRE's inquest, if a member of staff is unable to utilise their own PIT alarm in an emergency, this creates an obvious risk of death to both service users and staff alike. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable personal emergency alarms for people requiring assistance.

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

Operate a security lead role each shift to check, issue, replace, recover, record and charge PIT alarms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Dartmouth House has instituted an operational change with the introduction of a ‘security lead’ role. This is allocated to an appropriately experienced clinical staff member on commencement of each shift.”

Source location

2021-0138-Response-from-Dartmouth-House-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 5 May 2021

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

Reinforce the PIT alarm procedures and security lead arrangements through staff meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These actions and changes will be further reinforced through staff meetings.”

Source location

2021-0138-Response-from-Dartmouth-House-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 5 May 2021

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

Use clinical staff supervision sessions to reinforce PIT alarm fault reporting, replacement access, security lead responsibilities and alarm testing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Options for Care has an existing system of Review and Feedback (supervision) sessions for clinical staff each facilitated by an appropriate line manager. To strengthen existing systems and processes, the management team will utilise these sessions to:”

Source location

2021-0138-Response-from-Dartmouth-House-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 5 May 2021

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

Existing changes at Dartmouth House are considered sufficient to meet the Regulation 28 requirements concerning PIT alarms and staff training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I trust these changes already in place at Dartmouth House effectively meet the requirements of the actions which should be taken as identified in the Regulation 28 report. Should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.”

Source location

2021-0138-Response-from-Dartmouth-House-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 5 May 2021

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.1

  1. 1

    Train agency and temporary staff to test and use PIT alarms on first attendance and provide refresher updates at subsequent visits.

    Stated by Options for CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2021.

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

Train agency and temporary staff to test and use PIT alarms on first attendance and provide refresher updates at subsequent visits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Agency or temporary staff will:”

Source location

2021-0138-Response-from-Dartmouth-House-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 5 May 2021

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026