PFD report

Edward Arthur Lundy · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Mar 2018•Somerset

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 clearly communicate when psychiatric assessment is believed necessary in referrals
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient detail in referrals for safe risk assessment and prioritisationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable mental health referral pathways
  2. Failure to maintain continuity of care when patients have contact with multiple professionals
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide continuity of patient care
  3. Failure to document discharge consultation and explicitly discuss risks with families
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 clearly communicate when psychiatric assessment is believed necessary in referrals

Wider context from the report

“1. Edward Lundy had contact with many professionals in a short period of time and that affected the continuity of his care. Proposed action to set up joint services review with provider organisations involved with an oversight report to be produced. 2. That upon Edward Lundy's discharge into the care of his family, there should have been independent consultation with the family and this should have been documented with the risks being explicitly discussed. Proposed action to ensure that the Psychiatric Liaison Operational Policy stated as such and to disseminate to all liaison teams via pathway meetings and local business meetings. 3. That the doctor referring Edward to the Lambeth Assessment and Liaison Team should have made it clear that he believed Edward should be seen by a psychiatrist. Proposed action that the Training Lead in the Trust be informed that GP trainees should receive risk management training, focussing on crisis intervention services e.g. when to consider CMHT/Home Treatment Team/Inpatient Admission. There has been no evidence produced as to compliance with the recommended actions. There has been no evidence produced as to the findings of the report and its proposed actions being started nationally so as to inform other Mental Health Trusts. That the family received no information as to the proposed actions having been followed through and any resultant changes in procedure. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient detail in referrals for safe risk assessment and prioritisation; Unreliable mental health referral pathways.

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 maintain continuity of care when patients have contact with multiple professionals

Wider context from the report

“1. Edward Lundy had contact with many professionals in a short period of time and that affected the continuity of his care. Proposed action to set up joint services review with provider organisations involved with an oversight report to be produced. 2. That upon Edward Lundy's discharge into the care of his family, there should have been independent consultation with the family and this should have been documented with the risks being explicitly discussed. Proposed action to ensure that the Psychiatric Liaison Operational Policy stated as such and to disseminate to all liaison teams via pathway meetings and local business meetings. 3. That the doctor referring Edward to the Lambeth Assessment and Liaison Team should have made it clear that he believed Edward should be seen by a psychiatrist. Proposed action that the Training Lead in the Trust be informed that GP trainees should receive risk management training, focussing on crisis intervention services e.g. when to consider CMHT/Home Treatment Team/Inpatient Admission. There has been no evidence produced as to compliance with the recommended actions. There has been no evidence produced as to the findings of the report and its proposed actions being started nationally so as to inform other Mental Health Trusts. That the family received no information as to the proposed actions having been followed through and any resultant changes in procedure. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide continuity of patient care.

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 document discharge consultation and explicitly discuss risks with families

Wider context from the report

“1. Edward Lundy had contact with many professionals in a short period of time and that affected the continuity of his care. Proposed action to set up joint services review with provider organisations involved with an oversight report to be produced. 2. That upon Edward Lundy's discharge into the care of his family, there should have been independent consultation with the family and this should have been documented with the risks being explicitly discussed. Proposed action to ensure that the Psychiatric Liaison Operational Policy stated as such and to disseminate to all liaison teams via pathway meetings and local business meetings. 3. That the doctor referring Edward to the Lambeth Assessment and Liaison Team should have made it clear that he believed Edward should be seen by a psychiatrist. Proposed action that the Training Lead in the Trust be informed that GP trainees should receive risk management training, focussing on crisis intervention services e.g. when to consider CMHT/Home Treatment Team/Inpatient Admission. There has been no evidence produced as to compliance with the recommended actions. There has been no evidence produced as to the findings of the report and its proposed actions being started nationally so as to inform other Mental Health Trusts. That the family received no information as to the proposed actions having been followed through and any resultant changes in procedure. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisions; Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisions; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 evidence of compliance with recommended safety actions

Wider context from the report

“1. Edward Lundy had contact with many professionals in a short period of time and that affected the continuity of his care. Proposed action to set up joint services review with provider organisations involved with an oversight report to be produced. 2. That upon Edward Lundy's discharge into the care of his family, there should have been independent consultation with the family and this should have been documented with the risks being explicitly discussed. Proposed action to ensure that the Psychiatric Liaison Operational Policy stated as such and to disseminate to all liaison teams via pathway meetings and local business meetings. 3. That the doctor referring Edward to the Lambeth Assessment and Liaison Team should have made it clear that he believed Edward should be seen by a psychiatrist. Proposed action that the Training Lead in the Trust be informed that GP trainees should receive risk management training, focussing on crisis intervention services e.g. when to consider CMHT/Home Treatment Team/Inpatient Admission. There has been no evidence produced as to compliance with the recommended actions. There has been no evidence produced as to the findings of the report and its proposed actions being started nationally so as to inform other Mental Health Trusts. That the family received no information as to the proposed actions having been followed through and any resultant changes in procedure. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 independent consultation with families on discharge to family care

Wider context from the report

“1. Edward Lundy had contact with many professionals in a short period of time and that affected the continuity of his care. Proposed action to set up joint services review with provider organisations involved with an oversight report to be produced. 2. That upon Edward Lundy's discharge into the care of his family, there should have been independent consultation with the family and this should have been documented with the risks being explicitly discussed. Proposed action to ensure that the Psychiatric Liaison Operational Policy stated as such and to disseminate to all liaison teams via pathway meetings and local business meetings. 3. That the doctor referring Edward to the Lambeth Assessment and Liaison Team should have made it clear that he believed Edward should be seen by a psychiatrist. Proposed action that the Training Lead in the Trust be informed that GP trainees should receive risk management training, focussing on crisis intervention services e.g. when to consider CMHT/Home Treatment Team/Inpatient Admission. There has been no evidence produced as to compliance with the recommended actions. There has been no evidence produced as to the findings of the report and its proposed actions being started nationally so as to inform other Mental Health Trusts. That the family received no information as to the proposed actions having been followed through and any resultant changes in procedure. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisions; Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisions.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.