PFD report

John Richard William JONES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Aug 2016•Inner North London

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
2

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 raised1

  1. Failure to address inpatients’ inability to engage with offered therapy
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable therapeutic engagement in mental health care
Responses linked to these concerns

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

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

  1. Position

    Forcing patients to participate in therapy as a condition of hospital admission would conflict with the Mental Capacity Act.

    Stated by Florence Nightingale Hospitals Ltd.Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 address inpatients’ inability to engage with offered therapy

Wider context from the report

“I heard at inquest that, during his month long residence at the Nightingale, Mr Jones declined to engage with any of the 35 hours per week of group therapy on offer. He did see his consultant psychiatrist for a one to one session three times a week, and he went for a short walk with his parents most days. However, for the majority of his time in hospital, this extremely bright and able but very unwell man, simply stayed in his room alone. He engaged with nurses who popped in to see him on a polite but only ever superficial level. Sometimes he used his computer, but he did not even come out for meals with the other patients. He had a good appetite, but asked for meals to be brought to his room, which they were. This seems a very sub optimal therapeutic environment, most particularly as Mr Jones’s psychiatrist said that the reason for admitting him to hospital was to enable him to access the therapy on offer. I appreciate that Mr Jones himself declined the therapy, but the difficulty he had in accepting help was surely part and parcel of the reason for this episode of mental ill health, and had to be addressed. Whether a patient’s engagement is made a condition of stay at the hospital, whether it is secured by offering a different form of therapy e.g. on a one to one basis, or whether there is some other way of ensuring better treatment, is of course a matter for you. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable therapeutic engagement in mental health care.

Open source report

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

Forcing patients to participate in therapy as a condition of hospital admission would conflict with the Mental Capacity Act.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is acknowledged you concluded that Mr Jones experienced a sub-optimal therapeutic environment by virtue of his unwillingness to participate or engage in the formal therapy programmes that were on offer. However, it is further evidenced that to insist and/or force such engagement as a condition of remaining in hospital would run counter to the guiding principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). It is however accepted that this lack of engagement gave the impression that the hospital provided only a superficial level of service which amounted to a sub-optimal therapeutic experience. That is not to say that the regular, thorough consultations between consultant, patient, input from nurses and on occasion family sought to determine a plan of care which was agreed by all, and consented to by the patient throughout his treatment.”

Source location

2016-0300-Response-by-Nightingale-Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 19 August 2016

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

    Review, reconfigure and formalise the multidisciplinary team meeting for general psychiatric patients.

    Stated by Florence Nightingale Hospitals Ltd.Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 August 2016.
  2. 2

    Develop and introduce a decision-making pathway using multidisciplinary discussion information, including input from patients and, where appropriate, families.

    Stated by Florence Nightingale Hospitals Ltd.Stated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 August 2016.

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, reconfigure and formalise the multidisciplinary team meeting for general psychiatric patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Review/reconfigure and formalise the MDT meeting for General Psychiatric patients. This has been completed”

Source location

2016-0300-Response-by-Nightingale-Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 19 August 2016

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

Develop and introduce a decision-making pathway using multidisciplinary discussion information, including input from patients and, where appropriate, families.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Development and introduction of decision-making pathway based on information gathered and collated from MDT discussions including the patient and where appropriate, family members. Pathway to be presented to Care Quality Management Group (CQMG) (September) & Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) for ratification in September 2016.”

Source location

2016-0300-Response-by-Nightingale-Hospital
Page 1 · response
Published 19 August 2016

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026