PFD report

Ella Louise Murray · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 7 Feb 2025•Mid Kent and Medway

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
15

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 raised6

  1. Failure to take urgent safeguarding steps to remove children from an unsafe family home
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding referrals and notices
  2. Delays in convening multi-agency safeguarding meetings
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concernsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination
  3. Lack of shared access to safeguarding records across agencies
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk information
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.6

  1. Action

    Deliver the national rollout of reforms to family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making, including multi-agency child protection teams.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  2. Action

    Deliver system-wide learning events on provider learning, family perspectives and inter-agency working following children’s and young people’s suicides.

    Stated by NHS Kent and Medway ICBStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  3. Action

    Develop a shared risk protocol with system partners.

    Stated by NHS Kent and Medway ICBStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 April 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    NHS England and the integrated care board are responsible for addressing the local concerns and explaining missing safeguarding action and mitigations.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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 take urgent safeguarding steps to remove children from an unsafe family home

Wider context from the report

“(1)During the course of the inquest it became clear that Ella was a child in a complex family situation and showing signs of deterioration of her mental health. Her school had raised concerns about her with social services and taken steps to make sure she was seen by healthcare professionals when she indicated to staff at school she wanted to end her life on 13 November 2023. She was assessed by mental health nursing staff and accepted to the caseload of the Intensive Home Treatment Team. She was seen the following day and told the staff nurse who saw her that she was frightened of her stepfather and had run away from home barefoot and police called but she was brought back home by her mother who “grabbed her face” the morning she was seen. She told the nurse that she did not want to be in the family home and would rather go to prison and would harm herself or others is she had to stay at home. (2) This disclosure led to the nurse making a Safeguarding Referral but this was made after she left Ella’s home and no urgent steps were taken to remove Ella either to a hospital bed or to ask social services to consider if she should be removed from the family home. Her school had raised concerns about her and she herself had indicated she wished to end her life. Evidence heard at the inquest was that this was the procedure in place and there is no shared access to records for all agencies and no way to convene an urgent multi-agency meeting to determine if Ella was safe to remain at home. Had steps been taken to share information between her school, social services and the mental health providers when she attend the emergency department on 13 November 2023 or early the following day rather than leave her at home she may have been removed from her home and may still be alive today. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding referrals and notices.

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 convening multi-agency safeguarding meetings

Wider context from the report

“(3) Whilst there were concerns about the level of risk assessment undertaken on 14 November 2023 senior staff at the Trust gave evidence that she did not meet the criteria for admission to a hospital bed. This was difficult to reconcile with the documentary evidence as she was clearly crying out for help and her school had recognised this. No one agency involved had access to all the relevant information and concerns about Ella across the health, social care and education arenas. Evidence given suggested that shared records would assist but the ability to respond to urgent concerns would require a system change. (4)It was brought to the court’s attention that the new Children’s Wellbeing and Schools bill includes a duty to share information to promote safeguarding. In addition the local authority may convene a strategy meeting under s47 of the Children Act 1989 although the speed of convening a meeting would depend on availability and would obviously not be as swift as for example attending an accident and emergency department. If a multiagency meeting had been convened this may have prevented Ella’s death and such action may reduce the risk of death for other children being in a similar position. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concerns; Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination.

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

Lack of shared access to safeguarding records across agencies

Wider context from the report

“(1)During the course of the inquest it became clear that Ella was a child in a complex family situation and showing signs of deterioration of her mental health. Her school had raised concerns about her with social services and taken steps to make sure she was seen by healthcare professionals when she indicated to staff at school she wanted to end her life on 13 November 2023. She was assessed by mental health nursing staff and accepted to the caseload of the Intensive Home Treatment Team. She was seen the following day and told the staff nurse who saw her that she was frightened of her stepfather and had run away from home barefoot and police called but she was brought back home by her mother who “grabbed her face” the morning she was seen. She told the nurse that she did not want to be in the family home and would rather go to prison and would harm herself or others is she had to stay at home. (2) This disclosure led to the nurse making a Safeguarding Referral but this was made after she left Ella’s home and no urgent steps were taken to remove Ella either to a hospital bed or to ask social services to consider if she should be removed from the family home. Her school had raised concerns about her and she herself had indicated she wished to end her life. Evidence heard at the inquest was that this was the procedure in place and there is no shared access to records for all agencies and no way to convene an urgent multi-agency meeting to determine if Ella was safe to remain at home. Had steps been taken to share information between her school, social services and the mental health providers when she attend the emergency department on 13 November 2023 or early the following day rather than leave her at home she may have been removed from her home and may still be alive today. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk information.

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

Inadequate assessment of risk to children presenting with safeguarding and mental health concerns

Wider context from the report

“(3) Whilst there were concerns about the level of risk assessment undertaken on 14 November 2023 senior staff at the Trust gave evidence that she did not meet the criteria for admission to a hospital bed. This was difficult to reconcile with the documentary evidence as she was clearly crying out for help and her school had recognised this. No one agency involved had access to all the relevant information and concerns about Ella across the health, social care and education arenas. Evidence given suggested that shared records would assist but the ability to respond to urgent concerns would require a system change. (4)It was brought to the court’s attention that the new Children’s Wellbeing and Schools bill includes a duty to share information to promote safeguarding. In addition the local authority may convene a strategy meeting under s47 of the Children Act 1989 although the speed of convening a meeting would depend on availability and would obviously not be as swift as for example attending an accident and emergency department. If a multiagency meeting had been convened this may have prevented Ella’s death and such action may reduce the risk of death for other children being in a similar position. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate child safeguarding assessment.

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 agencies with access to all relevant cross-sector safeguarding information

Wider context from the report

“(3) Whilst there were concerns about the level of risk assessment undertaken on 14 November 2023 senior staff at the Trust gave evidence that she did not meet the criteria for admission to a hospital bed. This was difficult to reconcile with the documentary evidence as she was clearly crying out for help and her school had recognised this. No one agency involved had access to all the relevant information and concerns about Ella across the health, social care and education arenas. Evidence given suggested that shared records would assist but the ability to respond to urgent concerns would require a system change. (4)It was brought to the court’s attention that the new Children’s Wellbeing and Schools bill includes a duty to share information to promote safeguarding. In addition the local authority may convene a strategy meeting under s47 of the Children Act 1989 although the speed of convening a meeting would depend on availability and would obviously not be as swift as for example attending an accident and emergency department. If a multiagency meeting had been convened this may have prevented Ella’s death and such action may reduce the risk of death for other children being in a similar position. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk information.

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

Lack of a mechanism to convene urgent multi-agency safeguarding meetings

Wider context from the report

“(1)During the course of the inquest it became clear that Ella was a child in a complex family situation and showing signs of deterioration of her mental health. Her school had raised concerns about her with social services and taken steps to make sure she was seen by healthcare professionals when she indicated to staff at school she wanted to end her life on 13 November 2023. She was assessed by mental health nursing staff and accepted to the caseload of the Intensive Home Treatment Team. She was seen the following day and told the staff nurse who saw her that she was frightened of her stepfather and had run away from home barefoot and police called but she was brought back home by her mother who “grabbed her face” the morning she was seen. She told the nurse that she did not want to be in the family home and would rather go to prison and would harm herself or others is she had to stay at home. (2) This disclosure led to the nurse making a Safeguarding Referral but this was made after she left Ella’s home and no urgent steps were taken to remove Ella either to a hospital bed or to ask social services to consider if she should be removed from the family home. Her school had raised concerns about her and she herself had indicated she wished to end her life. Evidence heard at the inquest was that this was the procedure in place and there is no shared access to records for all agencies and no way to convene an urgent multi-agency meeting to determine if Ella was safe to remain at home. Had steps been taken to share information between her school, social services and the mental health providers when she attend the emergency department on 13 November 2023 or early the following day rather than leave her at home she may have been removed from her home and may still be alive today. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concerns; Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination.

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

Deliver the national rollout of reforms to family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making, including multi-agency child protection teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of this, the Government’s Families First Partnership programme is delivering the national rollout of reforms to family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making, including delivery of MACPTs. The programme guide sets out the responsibilities of the MACPT members, including to facilitate better communication and information sharing among practitioners and agencies. This is available at: Families First Partnership programme - GOV.UK”

Source location

2025-0182 Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Deliver system-wide learning events on provider learning, family perspectives and inter-agency working following children’s and young people’s suicides.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of the ICBs response to a number of suicides of children and young people during 2023, a series of learning events have taken place. The first focused on North East London Foundation Trust (NELFT - our children and young people mental health services provider) and their learning as an organisation. The second focused on the patients’ and their families’ perspective to ensure their voices were engaged as part of wider learning. The third focused on system wide/inter agency working in November 2024. This event will culminate in a system wide improvement plan that will include a focus on agency information sharing, risk assessments and decision making among others. Work on a shared risk protocol across system partners has already commenced.”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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 a shared risk protocol with system partners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of the ICBs response to a number of suicides of children and young people during 2023, a series of learning events have taken place. The first focused on North East London Foundation Trust (NELFT - our children and young people mental health services provider) and their learning as an organisation. The second focused on the patients’ and their families’ perspective to ensure their voices were engaged as part of wider learning. The third focused on system wide/inter agency working in November 2024. This event will culminate in a system wide improvement plan that will include a focus on agency information sharing, risk assessments and decision making among others. Work on a shared risk protocol across system partners has already commenced.”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Implement the Kent and Medway Care Record to enable inter-agency access to health and social care records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, Kent & Medway ICB has implemented the Kent and Medway Care Record (KMCR), which supports inter agency access to health and social care records. The level of visibility recommended is largely in place, although continued work to support use of the system is ongoing. There are no current plans to have a direct interface between education and the KMCR, but Kent County Council front door teams, who act as a single point of contact for requests for support at an intensive level or above for children, young people and families, ensuring these requests are directed to the appropriate service for ongoing support”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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 a system-wide improvement plan addressing agency information sharing, risk assessments and decision-making.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of the ICBs response to a number of suicides of children and young people during 2023, a series of learning events have taken place. The first focused on North East London Foundation Trust (NELFT - our children and young people mental health services provider) and their learning as an organisation. The second focused on the patients’ and their families’ perspective to ensure their voices were engaged as part of wider learning. The third focused on system wide/inter agency working in November 2024. This event will culminate in a system wide improvement plan that will include a focus on agency information sharing, risk assessments and decision making among others. Work on a shared risk protocol across system partners has already commenced.”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Continue work supporting use of the Kent and Medway Care Record across relevant services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, Kent & Medway ICB has implemented the Kent and Medway Care Record (KMCR), which supports inter agency access to health and social care records. The level of visibility recommended is largely in place, although continued work to support use of the system is ongoing. There are no current plans to have a direct interface between education and the KMCR, but Kent County Council front door teams, who act as a single point of contact for requests for support at an intensive level or above for children, young people and families, ensuring these requests are directed to the appropriate service for ongoing support”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

NHS England and the integrated care board are responsible for addressing the local concerns and explaining missing safeguarding action and mitigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I understand that NHS England and Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board have also received this report and I trust that they will adequately address your concerns at the local level. I look forward to reading their responses and working with them on any proposed changes.”

Source location

2025-0182 Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Actions taken by the Integrated Care Board, social services and local authority fall outside the national policy or programme remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My response to the Coroner focuses on those areas of concern that sit within NHS England’s national policy or programme remit. It would not be appropriate at this juncture for NHS England to provide comment on actions taken by Kent & Medway Integrated Care Board, Kent Social Services or the Local Authority involved in Ella’s care.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

The Integrated Care Board is responsible for providing a separate system-level response detailing local actions taken.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ella’s case includes learnings for teams across NHS England and local organisations, as well as more broadly. It is NHS England’s understanding that Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board will be responding to the Coroner separately with a system-level response detailing the local actions taken. NHS England will consider the ICB’s response in due course. My colleagues from national NHS England teams have also provided the below input.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

No direct education interface with the Kent and Medway Care Record is currently planned because County Council front-door teams provide an alternative information-sharing route.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, Kent & Medway ICB has implemented the Kent and Medway Care Record (KMCR), which supports inter agency access to health and social care records. The level of visibility recommended is largely in place, although continued work to support use of the system is ongoing. There are no current plans to have a direct interface between education and the KMCR, but Kent County Council front door teams, who act as a single point of contact for requests for support at an intensive level or above for children, young people and families, ensuring these requests are directed to the appropriate service for ongoing support”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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.9

  1. 1

    Invest an additional £688 million to hire staff, deliver early interventions and reduce young people’s mental-health waiting lists.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  2. 2

    Expand mental-health support teams in schools to cover 100% of pupils by 2029/30.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  3. 3

    Embed mental-health support in new Young Futures hubs to provide an accessible route for young people seeking help.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  4. 4

    Implement Provider Collaboratives to integrate specialised mental health, learning disability and autism services and strengthen links across care settings.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  5. 5

    Provide regional safeguarding oversight of Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board actions to implement learning across safeguarding partnerships and commissioned services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  6. 6

    Consider the Integrated Care Board’s separate system-level response in due course.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  7. 7

    Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share relevant learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  8. 8

    Map system-wide Child Death Review processes against the NHS England Child Death Protocol through gap analysis.

    Stated by NHS Kent and Medway ICBStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
  9. 9

    Audit the child death cohort to evidence routine consideration of relevant groups and organisations.

    Stated by NHS Kent and Medway ICBStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 April 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Child safeguarding policy and related legislation fall outside the Department’s direct responsibility and are led by the Department for Education.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  2. 2

    Known organisations, including sports groups, are already routinely involved in child death processes in accordance with statutory guidance.

    Stated by NHS Kent and Medway ICBExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Invest an additional £688 million to hire staff, deliver early interventions and reduce young people’s mental-health waiting lists.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We recognise that too many children and young people like Ella are not getting the support that they need with their mental health. That is why we are investing an extra £688 million this year to transform mental health services by hiring more staff, delivering more early interventions, and getting waiting lists down so young people can have the best possible start in life.”

Source location

2025-0182 Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 3 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Expand mental-health support teams in schools to cover 100% of pupils by 2029/30.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We want to intervene much earlier to support better outcomes for children and young people. That is why our 10 Year Health Plan sets out how we will work with schools and colleges to better identify and meet children's mental health needs by expanding mental health support teams in schools to cover 100% of pupils by 2029/30, and by embedding mental health support in the new Young Futures hubs, to ensure there is no 'wrong front door' for young people seeking help.”

Source location

2025-0182 Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 3 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Embed mental-health support in new Young Futures hubs to provide an accessible route for young people seeking help.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We want to intervene much earlier to support better outcomes for children and young people. That is why our 10 Year Health Plan sets out how we will work with schools and colleges to better identify and meet children's mental health needs by expanding mental health support teams in schools to cover 100% of pupils by 2029/30, and by embedding mental health support in the new Young Futures hubs, to ensure there is no 'wrong front door' for young people seeking help.”

Source location

2025-0182 Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 3 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Implement Provider Collaboratives to integrate specialised mental health, learning disability and autism services and strengthen links across care settings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) are a vehicle for integrated planning, to ensure that those who need it have access to comprehensive mental health support which is integrated across health, social care, education, and the voluntary sector. The vision for greater local system integration and autonomy is being implemented for specialised mental health, learning disability and autism services, by giving responsibility for a given population to Provider Collaboratives. Provider Collaboratives will improve links to other care settings, to improve the whole pathway and reduce reliance on the most specialised services by reinvesting in community provision.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Provide regional safeguarding oversight of Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board actions to implement learning across safeguarding partnerships and commissioned services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The NHS England South East regional safeguarding team will, through established governance arrangements, have oversight of Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board’s actions to implement the learning to improve safeguarding at both the Local Safeguarding Children Partnership and within all commissioned services.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Consider the Integrated Care Board’s separate system-level response in due course.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ella’s case includes learnings for teams across NHS England and local organisations, as well as more broadly. It is NHS England’s understanding that Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board will be responding to the Coroner separately with a system-level response detailing the local actions taken. NHS England will consider the ICB’s response in due course. My colleagues from national NHS England teams have also provided the below input.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Discuss received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share relevant learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Ella, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Map system-wide Child Death Review processes against the NHS England Child Death Protocol through gap analysis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Work has commenced a system wide Child Death Review process, to ensure appropriate gap analysis is mapped to the new NHS England Child Death Protocol and in preparation for the soon to be published Independent Review into Kent & Medway’s Child Death arrangements.”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 3 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Audit the child death cohort to evidence routine consideration of relevant groups and organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The specific action for the Child Death Review Team from the published Local Safeguarding Child Practice Review (LSCPR) for Ella and her older sibling was as follows: The Kent and Medway Child Death review team will ensure any groups e.g. any sports teams/ etc. are routinely considered as part of the Child Death Review process to meet this recommendation.”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 3 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Child safeguarding policy and related legislation fall outside the Department’s direct responsibility and are led by the Department for Education.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For matters that fall outside of this Department’s direct responsibility, I would respectfully signpost you to the Department for Education (DfE), which leads on child safeguarding policy and related legislation and is better placed to respond to these elements of your report. I understand that they are preparing a separate response addressing those elements and my response references DfE policy where relevant.”

Source location

2025-0182 Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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

Known organisations, including sports groups, are already routinely involved in child death processes in accordance with statutory guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The specific action for the Child Death Review Team from the published Local Safeguarding Child Practice Review (LSCPR) for Ella and her older sibling was as follows: The Kent and Medway Child Death review team will ensure any groups e.g. any sports teams/ etc. are routinely considered as part of the Child Death Review process to meet this recommendation.”

Source location

Response from Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board
Page 3 · response
Published 16 April 2025

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026