PFD report

Oliver Davies · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Oct 2024•Worcestershire

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

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 raised4

  1. Failure to incorporate self-harm risk referrals into mental-health care prioritisation
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Unreliable gathering and use of collateral information in mental health assessments
  2. Failure to escalate anticipated inability to provide mental-health care before leave
  3. Failure to highlight recent mental-health and self-harm risk information in medical records for clinical assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health informationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of suicide-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.5

  1. Action

    Require daily meetings to identify absent care-coordinator patients, assign temporary responsibility, and document handovers and rationale in minutes and SystmOne, with induction and attendance requirements.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2024.
  2. Action

    Reinforce reviewing recent electronic patient-record activity before assessment or intervention through incident-meeting messages, governance dissemination, management reminders and supervision.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2024.
  3. Action

    Ensure TAG referrals and healthcare applications are added to and visible in SystmOne.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2024.

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 self-harm risk referrals into mental-health care prioritisation

Wider context from the report

“2) Oliver was allocated a care coordinator on 6.12.12 following the nurse’s assessment. An appointment was fixed for Oliver to meet the care coordinator for the first time on 14.12.22. Due to workload pressures, the care coordinator was unable to fulfil that appointment before he went on leave from 16-28.12.22. Shortly before he went on leave, the care coordinator conducted a “RAG rating” exercise to determine whether he should prioritise seeing Oliver, and determined that Oliver’s case merited the lowest priority RAG rating ( green ). When conducting that RAG rating exercise, the care coordinator did not take into account: (a) The prison officer’s urgent TAG mental health referral of 30.11.22 ( above ); and (b) A further TAG mental health referral made by a prison paramedic which cited “mild concerns” about deliberate and unintentional self-harm on Oliver’s part, the details of which had been entered onto Oliver’s SystmOne medical record. In addition, the care coordinator did not raise in the mental health team’s daily forum.the fact that he was unlikely to have time to see Oliver before he went on leave. Had the care coordinator taken into account the referrals at (a)-(b) above, and raised at the daily forum his difficulty in being able to see Oliver, it may well have been that Oliver’s case would have merited a more urgent response from the care coordinator or someone else in his stead. Having heard evidence at the inquest from your Trust’s Clinical Director, ████████, I was not satisfied that the Trust has fully recognised the above shortcomings, and taken action to ensure that they are not repeated for other mental health patients in custody at HMP Hewell. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment; 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 anticipated inability to provide mental-health care before leave

Wider context from the report

“2) Oliver was allocated a care coordinator on 6.12.12 following the nurse’s assessment. An appointment was fixed for Oliver to meet the care coordinator for the first time on 14.12.22. Due to workload pressures, the care coordinator was unable to fulfil that appointment before he went on leave from 16-28.12.22. Shortly before he went on leave, the care coordinator conducted a “RAG rating” exercise to determine whether he should prioritise seeing Oliver, and determined that Oliver’s case merited the lowest priority RAG rating ( green ). When conducting that RAG rating exercise, the care coordinator did not take into account: (a) The prison officer’s urgent TAG mental health referral of 30.11.22 ( above ); and (b) A further TAG mental health referral made by a prison paramedic which cited “mild concerns” about deliberate and unintentional self-harm on Oliver’s part, the details of which had been entered onto Oliver’s SystmOne medical record. In addition, the care coordinator did not raise in the mental health team’s daily forum.the fact that he was unlikely to have time to see Oliver before he went on leave. Had the care coordinator taken into account the referrals at (a)-(b) above, and raised at the daily forum his difficulty in being able to see Oliver, it may well have been that Oliver’s case would have merited a more urgent response from the care coordinator or someone else in his stead. Having heard evidence at the inquest from your Trust’s Clinical Director, ████████, I was not satisfied that the Trust has fully recognised the above shortcomings, and taken action to ensure that they are not repeated for other mental health patients in custody at HMP Hewell. ”

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 highlight recent mental-health and self-harm risk information in medical records for clinical assessment

Wider context from the report

“1) Oliver had been at HMP Hewell since 20.10.22. He was a man with long-standing mental health issues, for whom this was a first experience of custody. After a steady deterioration in his mental state, a mental health referral on 17.11.22 led to a belated mental health examination conducted by a registered learning disability nurse on 6.12.22. In the week leading up to the nurse’s assessment: (a) A prison officer had made an urgent TAG mental health referral on 30.11.22, citing concerns that Oliver was experiencing active thoughts of self-harm or suicide, and that he (the officer) had “mild concerns” about intentional self-harm, and there were “definite indicators” of unintentional self-harm; and (b) Oliver himself had submitted a healthcare application form asking to see a doctor, saying that he was “extremely depressed”, his anxiety was “really high” and he was “not coping at all, please help”; These important events were not highlighted on Oliver’s SystmOne medical record, and so the nurse conducting the assessment 6.12.22 was not aware of either of these important recent events, and did not take them into account when assessing Oliver; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information; Unreliable recording of suicide-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

Delays in initial mental-health care coordinator appointments due to workload pressures

Wider context from the report

“2) Oliver was allocated a care coordinator on 6.12.12 following the nurse’s assessment. An appointment was fixed for Oliver to meet the care coordinator for the first time on 14.12.22. Due to workload pressures, the care coordinator was unable to fulfil that appointment before he went on leave from 16-28.12.22. Shortly before he went on leave, the care coordinator conducted a “RAG rating” exercise to determine whether he should prioritise seeing Oliver, and determined that Oliver’s case merited the lowest priority RAG rating ( green ). When conducting that RAG rating exercise, the care coordinator did not take into account: (a) The prison officer’s urgent TAG mental health referral of 30.11.22 ( above ); and (b) A further TAG mental health referral made by a prison paramedic which cited “mild concerns” about deliberate and unintentional self-harm on Oliver’s part, the details of which had been entered onto Oliver’s SystmOne medical record. In addition, the care coordinator did not raise in the mental health team’s daily forum.the fact that he was unlikely to have time to see Oliver before he went on leave. Had the care coordinator taken into account the referrals at (a)-(b) above, and raised at the daily forum his difficulty in being able to see Oliver, it may well have been that Oliver’s case would have merited a more urgent response from the care coordinator or someone else in his stead. Having heard evidence at the inquest from your Trust’s Clinical Director, ████████, I was not satisfied that the Trust has fully recognised the above shortcomings, and taken action to ensure that they are not repeated for other mental health patients in custody at HMP Hewell. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable care-coordinator provision and cover for mental health service users.

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

Require daily meetings to identify absent care-coordinator patients, assign temporary responsibility, and document handovers and rationale in minutes and SystmOne, with induction and attendance requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A standing agenda item of “Provision of Care to Patients in the Absence of Care Coordinator” was added to the Daily Meeting standing agenda. This ensures continuous care for all patients, regardless of staff availability. When a patient concern is raised during these meetings and the assigned care coordinator is absent, the issue is thoroughly discussed among the present team members. A specific worker is then designated to address the concern and assume temporary responsibility for the patient's care. This handover of responsibility is formally documented in the meeting minutes and the patient’s SystmOne record along with rationale. New staff members are introduced to this process during their induction, with details available in the induction folder, and all team members are required to attend these daily meetings.”

Source location

Response from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 14 October 2024

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 reviewing recent electronic patient-record activity before assessment or intervention through incident-meeting messages, governance dissemination, management reminders and supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The importance of staff familiarising themselves with recent clinical activity from the electronic patient record has been highlighted to all Inclusion staff as part of the key messages that arise from our monthly Health in Justice Serious Incident Meeting.”

Source location

Response from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2024

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

Ensure TAG referrals and healthcare applications are added to and visible in SystmOne.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is also now, a clear process for the management of TAG referrals and Healthcare applications ensuring that they are added to and visible in SystmOne.”

Source location

Response from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2024

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 continuity-of-care arrangements for planned and unplanned staff absence, including guidance, multidisciplinary discussion and joint daily huddles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is now also a process embedded within the service to ensure continuity of care during planned and unplanned staff absence. This is set out in the MPFT guidance called “Reallocation when staff are leaving and when absent for 2 weeks or more”. Patients of concern are also discussed within our multidisciplinary forums, both internally within our service, and at joint daily huddles that are now in place led by Practice Plus Group.”

Source location

Response from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 14 October 2024

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

Document patient concerns in SystmOne so subsequent staff can identify raised concerns and plan care and treatment to mitigate risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following Mr Davies death, all MPFT colleagues at HMP Hewell have participated in specific clinical supervision focused on the importance of listening to and responding to prisoner concerns. To further support this, the team holds daily team meetings, monthly business meetings, weekly healthcare huddles, and weekly Safety Intervention Meetings (SIM) meetings; all of which have recorded minutes where prisoners' concerns are addressed. Information from the SIM meetings is disseminated to care coordinators via email, ensuring that tasks arising from these discussions can be actioned promptly. All patient concerns are documented on SystmOne by the person who is notified of the concern so that anyone looking at the”

Source location

Response from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2024

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Implement an EDIC-based process for managing referrals and patient communications, supported by staff briefings, guidance, email circulation, team discussion and induction.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2024.
  2. 2

    Provide clinical supervision on listening and responding to prisoner concerns, supported by team meetings, healthcare huddles and Safety Intervention Meetings with recorded minutes and task dissemination.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2024.

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 an EDIC-based process for managing referrals and patient communications, supported by staff briefings, guidance, email circulation, team discussion and induction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since the time of Mr Davies’ death, MPFT has implemented a process for managing referrals and patient-related communications at HMP Hewell, centred around the EDIC (Early Days in Custody) model. MPFT staff working within the prison, have been thoroughly briefed on the EDIC model and are provided with a good practice guide, ensuring consistent and efficient handling of referrals and patient communications across services. This process has been circulated to staff by email, discussed in team business meetings and included in staff inductions.”

Source location

Response from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2024

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 clinical supervision on listening and responding to prisoner concerns, supported by team meetings, healthcare huddles and Safety Intervention Meetings with recorded minutes and task dissemination.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following Mr Davies death, all MPFT colleagues at HMP Hewell have participated in specific clinical supervision focused on the importance of listening to and responding to prisoner concerns. To further support this, the team holds daily team meetings, monthly business meetings, weekly healthcare huddles, and weekly Safety Intervention Meetings (SIM) meetings; all of which have recorded minutes where prisoners' concerns are addressed. Information from the SIM meetings is disseminated to care coordinators via email, ensuring that tasks arising from these discussions can be actioned promptly. All patient concerns are documented on SystmOne by the person who is notified of the concern so that anyone looking at the”

Source location

Response from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 October 2024

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026