David Michael Sewell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 7 Sep 2017•South Wales Central

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

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 raised1

  1. Lack of a robust system to ensure people with mental health problems are seen and receive appropriate care
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Local Health Board

    Notify main reception staff to identify Mental Health appointments and direct or assist confused attendees appropriately.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Local Health Board

    The disengagement policy was followed and discharge was reasonable, so no further engagement action was considered available.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Local Health Board

    Mental Health Act detention was not considered available, and community services were judged appropriate based on the presenting condition.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 robust system to ensure people with mental health problems are seen and receive appropriate care

Wider context from the report

“1) When Mr Sewell attended for the appointment with the Psychiatrist he was told by the main reception that they were unaware of a Health Worker of that name and he left the building. He was contacted by telephone on 3 occasions on the 16th and 17th August but displayed hostility towards members of the team. His case was discussed by the Multi-Disciplinary Team on the 18th August 2016 who decided to write a letter him which was sent on the 26th August inviting him to make contact or otherwise he would be discharged from the Team as care. He did not respond to that letter and no further follow up was made. The concern the evidence revealed relates to the apparent lack of a robust system to ensure that individuals with mental health problems, who may have experienced psychotic episodes as Mr Sewell had, are seen and appropriate care delivered. It was apparent from the evidence that after the letter was sent inviting him to make contact he was simply discharged from the case load with no further efforts or steps being made to try and re-engage him. There was clearly a need to do so. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up.

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

Notify main reception staff to identify Mental Health appointments and direct or assist confused attendees appropriately.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To reduce this potential for confusion in the future the Adult Mental Health Directorate management teams have written to colleagues who are responsible for staffing the main reception (and their managers). Within this letter it reminds staff that people arriving for appointments that are not on the main system should be asked if the appointment is with the Mental Health Team and if so direct accordingly. Also to be alert to the fact that people may be confused on the matter and require more attention. (letter attached).”

Source location

2017-0229-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 5 October 2017

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 disengagement policy was followed and discharge was reasonable, so no further engagement action was considered available.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of the Disengagement Policy for Mental Health has been conducted, and it concluded that all stages of the policy were followed and it was reasonable at this time to discharge Mr Sewell as he clearly had no intention to meaningfully engage with the service. As consideration for Mental Health Act detention had been undertaken, the team wrote to Mr Sewell at the time as telephone contact was clearly antagonising the situation, to further offer a service.”

Source location

2017-0229-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 5 October 2017

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

Mental Health Act detention was not considered available, and community services were judged appropriate based on the presenting condition.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Mental Health Directorate Management Team have reviewed the case and the circumstances of Mr Sewell’s engagement. As you state a referral was received at the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) following assessment by the Psychiatric Liaison Service. The referral was sent to the CMHT following a detailed assessment on the 4th August 2017 that included consideration for detention under the Mental Health Act (MHA, 1983) which stated that Mr Sewell would not be detainable. It was therefore the professional view of the CMHT that this was not an option at the time of the presenting condition and that community services were deemed the appropriate course of action.”

Source location

2017-0229-Response-by-University-Health-Board
Page 1 · response
Published 5 October 2017

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