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.
On 11ᵗʰ April 2021 this Court commenced an investigation into the death of Winbourne Gregory Charles, aged 58. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest held before a jury between the 17ᵗʰ and 21ˢᵗ April 2023. The Court returned a conclusion of:
“Suicide, contributed to by neglect, to which failures in medical intervention contributed and to which failures to respond to an obvious risk of self-harm contributed.”
Mr Charles’ medical cause of death was determined as;
Circumstances of the death
Winbourne Gregory Charles was admitted into hospital under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in November 2020 following an attempt to take his own life. In December 2020 on a diagnosis of depressive illness incorporating psychotic symptoms, Mr Charles was made subject to an order under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
On 10ᵗʰ April 2021 Mr Charles was found unresponsive, suspended ████████ on the mental health ward.
Coroner’s concerns
1. A failure to adequately assess risk of harm - Poor record keeping and a failure to read electronic records meant that important information was not considered at a Multi-Disciplinary Team (“MDT”) ward round on 6ᵗʰ April 2021. The MDT arrived at a conclusion that Mr Charles’ risk of self-harm was “no risk”. A psychologist’s assessment on the clinical record that assessed Mr Charles risk of self-harm as high on 31/3/21 was neither read nor incorporated into the MDT discussion.
2. A decision to reduce observation frequency made by the MDT on 6/4/21 was not supported by the Trust Policy guidance which indicated that enhanced observations were appropriate.
3. A failure to ensure that a treatment plan was followed - observations between 16.00 and 17.00 on the day of Mr Charles’ death were suspended by the ward shift co-ordinator. The decision meant all patients subject to general observation on the ward were ignored.
4. Failures to respond to an emergency adequately – The Trust described the emergency response as chaotic . Staff agreed that they “panicked” and did not follow policy, specific issues include; a. A ward emergency bell was not sounded, b. An anti-barricade key was not used to open Mr Charles’ door, instead the door was forced open causing a risk of harm to Mr Charles. c. A ligature cutter could not be used promptly as it was secured in a box with a combination lock – staff did not know the combination, d. Duty doctors were not called promptly, e. Oxygen administration was delayed, f. An on-site defibrillator was not used by staff g. Staff could or would not provide a clear and relevant history to paramedics.
5. The credibility of evidence provided by Trust staff. a. Two Trust witnesses declined to answer questions put to them regarding whether their observation records were truthful. b. Observation records appeared to have been created utilising a “cut and paste” function. c. Records often inaccurately recorded the prescribed frequency of observation. d. Factually inaccurate entries were made in the record following Mr Charles’ death. On 11ᵗʰ April 2021 an entry stated that Mr Charles was, “awake in his bedroom sitting on his bed (sic)” at 07.21. On 12ᵗʰ April two entries made at 9.48 and 11.40 recorded that Mr Charles’ was alive and well. Senior Trust witnesses characterised these entries as dishonest.
6. Governance process failings. a. A datix incident report created on the evening of 10ᵗʰ April 2021 by a senior nurse and Modern Matron contained misleading information that suggested that emergency response policies were followed when in fact they were not. b. The Datix failed to mention that observations had been suspended by the shift coordinator, a fact that was understood at that time. This obvious and significant piece of information that should have been escalated through the Trust governance team for action. c. The Trust 72 hour report was written by the Modern Matron and was signed-off by an integrated care director on 15th April 2021. This document also failed to identify or escalate the significant issue of the suspension of observation at 16.00 on 10th April 2021. d. The Trust SI report was not prepared to fully address the poor risk assessment or inadequate datix & 72 hr reports.
Concerns and recipient responses
Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
Report evidence summary
Concerns raised15
Failure to provide accurate emergency-response information in incident reports
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.17
Action
Remind staff through daily roll call to sound the ERT alarm for all ward emergencies and ensure a timely ERT response.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Refresh observation training to make enhanced-observation requirements explicit and deliver it to relevant clinical staff.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Share observation guidance and discuss it in ward safety huddles, meetings and supervision.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Reinforce observation-record training, audit records and address compliance in supervision.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Implement the new PSIRF framework, including panel review and sign-off of all 72-hour reports.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Review electronic-observation functionality.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Include anti-barricade-key use in resuscitation drills and audit staff awareness of its function.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Share the clarified observation-escalation process through leadership meetings, team meetings and individual supervision.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Commission an independent review of the MDT clinical decision about observation frequency.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Use live RiO records for handovers, daily run-throughs and MDT ward rounds.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Audit compliance with live-record use and risk-assessment processes.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Review Serious Incident processes and revisit the adequacy of evidence and learning captured in reports.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Refresh staff training on ligature-cutter locations and use.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Review the Safe and Supportive Observations Policy to clarify escalation when staffing or other constraints challenge observation provision.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Review original evidence and assess whether disciplinary action is warranted for inaccurate or misleading records and reports.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Action
Remind medical staff to respond to ERT alarms and alert the duty doctor promptly.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4
Position
Mandatory ILS training already covers oxygen administration and defibrillator use, so these requirements do not need separate training arrangements.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
SBARD and the Adult Cardiac Checklist already provide recognised frameworks for handing cardiac incident information to paramedics.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
The Safe and Supportive Observations Policy already prohibits suspending observations; the response limits further work to clarifying escalation.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Concerns about care provision and coordination are mainly for the NHS Trust to address.
Stated byDepartment of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
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.4
1
Review and update care plans and risk assessments following MDT meetings.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
2
Review the quality of resuscitation drills and their resulting action plans.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
3
Develop a revised therapeutic risk-assessment approach through a task-and-finish group involving service users, carers and experts by experience.
Stated byNorth East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
4
Publish a five-year Suicide Prevention Strategy for England containing over 130 suicide-prevention actions.
Stated byDepartment of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 May 2023.