PFD report

Winbourne Gregory Charles · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Apr 2023•East 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
15

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
21

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 raised15

  1. Failure to provide accurate emergency-response information in incident reports
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents
  2. Failure to incorporate available clinical information into self-harm risk assessments
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to incorporate relevant clinical history and diagnoses into care decisionsPart of recurring concern: Failure to incorporate relevant collateral and professional views into clinical assessmentPart of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Unreliable assessment of suicide and self-harm riskPart of recurring concern: Unreliable gathering and use of collateral information in mental health assessments
  3. Failure to escalate suspension of patient observations through governance processes
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of organisational governance to act on escalated patient-safety concerns
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.17

  1. Action

    Remind staff through daily roll call to sound the ERT alarm for all ward emergencies and ensure a timely ERT response.

    Stated by North East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
  2. Action

    Refresh observation training to make enhanced-observation requirements explicit and deliver it to relevant clinical staff.

    Stated by North East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
  3. Action

    Share observation guidance and discuss it in ward safety huddles, meetings and supervision.

    Stated by North 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

  1. Position

    Mandatory ILS training already covers oxygen administration and defibrillator use, so these requirements do not need separate training arrangements.

    Stated by North East London NHS Foundation TrustExisting 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 provide accurate emergency-response information in incident reports

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents.

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 incorporate available clinical information into self-harm risk assessments

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to incorporate relevant clinical history and diagnoses into care decisions; Failure to incorporate relevant collateral and professional views into clinical assessment; Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Unreliable assessment of suicide and self-harm risk; Unreliable gathering and use of collateral information in mental health assessments.

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 escalate suspension of patient observations through governance processes

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of organisational governance to act on escalated patient-safety concerns.

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 activate the ward emergency bell

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of emergency alarm response.

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 of serious incident investigation to address risk-assessment and reporting deficiencies

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management 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

Failure to carry out prescribed patient observations

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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 accurate and reliable observation records

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custody.

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 use the anti-barricade key to access a barricaded room

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate emergency access during barricade incidents.

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 align observation frequency decisions with policy guidance

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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

Unavailability of a ligature cutter for prompt emergency use

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable access to ligature cutters for frontline responders.

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 paramedics with a clear and relevant patient history

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable provision of safety-critical patient information to paramedics.

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 administering oxygen during emergencies

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency oxygen administration; Unreliable oxygen administration and clinical oversight.

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 calling duty doctors during emergencies

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective communication during medical emergencies.

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 identify and escalate observation suspension in the 72-hour report

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate patient-safety concerns to senior oversight; Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learning.

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 use the on-site defibrillator during an emergency

Wider context from the report

“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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable defibrillator operation during resuscitation.

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

Remind staff through daily roll call to sound the ERT alarm for all ward emergencies and ensure a timely ERT response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. The ERT alarm should be sounded in all ward emergency situations and the ERT team will respond”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 5 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Refresh observation training to make enhanced-observation requirements explicit and deliver it to relevant clinical staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Risk management (inappropriate care plan) – the Coroner found that a decision to reduce observation frequency made by the MDT on 6 April 2021 was not supported by the Trust Policy guidance which indicated that | 3. | Observation training to be refreshed to ensure this is explicit”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 3 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Share observation guidance and discuss it in ward safety huddles, meetings and supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. At a glance appendix from Safe and Supportive Observations to be shared again”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 3 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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 observation-record training, audit records and address compliance in supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“15. Record keeping training is available and audits take place”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 7 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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 new PSIRF framework, including panel review and sign-off of all 72-hour reports.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Implementation of new PSIRF framework, all 72hr reports will be reviewed and signed off by the panel.”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 9 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Conduct monthly resuscitation drills covering emergency alarms, equipment, oxygen, defibrillation, clinical handover and cardiac-checklist use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Risk management (shortcomings in responding to the emergency) – the Coroner found that the Trust did not respond to the | 5. | Resus drills which include all of these elements are taking place monthly. | 1. Resus drills to take place monthly”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 4 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Review electronic-observation functionality.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Review of Electronic Observation functionality”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 7 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Include anti-barricade-key use in resuscitation drills and audit staff awareness of its function.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. All bunches of keys have an anti barricade key on them. Key audits have taken place in 2023”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 5 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Share the clarified observation-escalation process through leadership meetings, team meetings and individual supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Safe and Supportive Observations policy has been reviewed to make escalation of this clear, to be shared through Leadership Team meetings, team meetings and individual supervision”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 8 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Commission an independent review of the MDT clinical decision about observation frequency.

Verbatim wording from the response

“enhanced observations were appropriate. | | Following the Inquest an independent review commissioned to review the clinical decision made by the MDT. | Independent Review commissioned by the Chief Nursing Officer | Chief Nursing Officer | October 2023”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 4 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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 live RiO records for handovers, daily run-throughs and MDT ward rounds.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Risk assessment (lack of appropriate consideration of risks) – the Coroner found that poor | 1. | Handovers and daily run through to take place using live RiO | 1. Matrons, Ward Managers and Consultant Psychiatrists to be made aware that this needs to be in place”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 2 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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 compliance with live-record use and risk-assessment processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. To be audited to ensure compliance | DON/AMD | June 2023”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 2 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Review Serious Incident processes and revisit the adequacy of evidence and learning captured in reports.

Verbatim wording from the response

“17. Review of SI report and HR processes.”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 8 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Refresh staff training on ligature-cutter locations and use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. [continued] 5. Refresh staff as part of the above on whereabouts of Ligature cutters (2 on each ward)”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 5 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Review the Safe and Supportive Observations Policy to clarify escalation when staffing or other constraints challenge observation provision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Risk management (lack of adherence to care plan) – the Coroner found that 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.3. Risk management and record keeping. | 4. | The Safe and Supportive Observations Policy does not allow for this to happen. However, if this becomes an issue due to teams being short staffed then escalation needs to be clearer | 1. Review of Policy to encompass escalation process”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 4 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Review original evidence and assess whether disciplinary action is warranted for inaccurate or misleading records and reports.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Revisit original evidence provided to the SI report.”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 6 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Remind medical staff to respond to ERT alarms and alert the duty doctor promptly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. Duty Dr should be alerted as a result of the ERT alarm”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 5 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Mandatory ILS training already covers oxygen administration and defibrillator use, so these requirements do not need separate training arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e. Oxygen administration was delayed.”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 6 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

SBARD and the Adult Cardiac Checklist already provide recognised frameworks for handing cardiac incident information to paramedics.

Verbatim wording from the response

“g. Staff could or would not provide clear and relevant history to paramedics.”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 6 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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 Safe and Supportive Observations Policy already prohibits suspending observations; the response limits further work to clarifying escalation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Risk management (lack of adherence to care plan) – the Coroner found that 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.3. Risk management and record keeping. | 4. | The Safe and Supportive Observations Policy does not allow for this to happen. However, if this becomes an issue due to teams being short staffed then escalation needs to be clearer | 1. Review of Policy to encompass escalation process”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 4 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Concerns about care provision and coordination are mainly for the NHS Trust to address.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report raises concerns over the provision and coordination of care that Winbourne received at North East London NHS Foundation Trust, which are mainly for the Trust to address. I understand that the Trust has already carefully considered the matters of concern in your report and has provided you with a comprehensive response as well as a copy of its action plan setting out the actions to be taken to improve care quality and patient safety.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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.4

  1. 1

    Review and update care plans and risk assessments following MDT meetings.

    Stated by North East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
  2. 2

    Review the quality of resuscitation drills and their resulting action plans.

    Stated by North East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2023.
  3. 3

    Develop a revised therapeutic risk-assessment approach through a task-and-finish group involving service users, carers and experts by experience.

    Stated by North 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. 4

    Publish a five-year Suicide Prevention Strategy for England containing over 130 suicide-prevention actions.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 May 2023.

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 and update care plans and risk assessments following MDT meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Care plans and risk assessments to be reviewed and updated as a result of this meeting”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 3 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Review the quality of resuscitation drills and their resulting action plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Review of the quality of Resus Drills”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 4 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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 revised therapeutic risk-assessment approach through a task-and-finish group involving service users, carers and experts by experience.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Trust to move from current Assessment of suicide risk in mental health practice: shifting from prediction to therapeutic assessment, formulation, and risk management | 1. Matrons, Ward Managers and Consultant Psychiatrists to be made aware that this needs to be in place”

Source location

NELFT NHS Foundation Trust Action Plan
Page 3 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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

Publish a five-year Suicide Prevention Strategy for England containing over 130 suicide-prevention actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From a national perspective, I would add that we published a new 5-year Suicide Prevention Strategy for England on 11 September with over 130 actions that we believe will make progress towards our ambition to reduce the suicide rate within two and a half years. The strategy is a call to action for national and local government, the health service, the VCSE sector, employers and individuals to work together to help prevent suicides.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 5 May 2023

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
3/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026