PFD report

Jordan Peter Clare · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Mar 2023•Manchester South

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 ensure that the person performing the coordination function has the necessary skills and training
  2. Lack of provision for vulnerable adults with complex needs outside existing care and supervision frameworks
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain clear ownership of multi-agency support and care
  3. Ad hoc arrangements operating across differing frameworks, levels and standards
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 ensure that the person performing the coordination function has the necessary skills and training

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence from the Head of Service for Safeguarding and Learning for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. She highlighted a long-standing gap in provision, which was described as extending across most if not all local authorities, for vulnerable adults who have complex needs, but who do not fall into the existing framework of social services, Care Act provision or formal mental health supervision. The effect of that gap is that there is no identifiable individual who is a single point of contact in such cases equivalent to a social worker or care co-ordinator. The result is that many vulnerable adults with complex needs have no such arrangements in place for contact, collating and sharing of information and deployment of services and assistance, support or safeguarding. Where such arrangements are in place, they are necessarily ad hoc in nature in differing frameworks, levels and standards, and can devolve by default to an individual who, whilst well-motivated, may lack the skills and training to properly perform the function, particularly when the vulnerable adult may be in crisis. ”

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

Lack of provision for vulnerable adults with complex needs outside existing care and supervision frameworks

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence from the Head of Service for Safeguarding and Learning for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. She highlighted a long-standing gap in provision, which was described as extending across most if not all local authorities, for vulnerable adults who have complex needs, but who do not fall into the existing framework of social services, Care Act provision or formal mental health supervision. The effect of that gap is that there is no identifiable individual who is a single point of contact in such cases equivalent to a social worker or care co-ordinator. The result is that many vulnerable adults with complex needs have no such arrangements in place for contact, collating and sharing of information and deployment of services and assistance, support or safeguarding. Where such arrangements are in place, they are necessarily ad hoc in nature in differing frameworks, levels and standards, and can devolve by default to an individual who, whilst well-motivated, may lack the skills and training to properly perform the function, particularly when the vulnerable adult may be in crisis. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain clear ownership of multi-agency support and 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

Ad hoc arrangements operating across differing frameworks, levels and standards

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence from the Head of Service for Safeguarding and Learning for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. She highlighted a long-standing gap in provision, which was described as extending across most if not all local authorities, for vulnerable adults who have complex needs, but who do not fall into the existing framework of social services, Care Act provision or formal mental health supervision. The effect of that gap is that there is no identifiable individual who is a single point of contact in such cases equivalent to a social worker or care co-ordinator. The result is that many vulnerable adults with complex needs have no such arrangements in place for contact, collating and sharing of information and deployment of services and assistance, support or safeguarding. Where such arrangements are in place, they are necessarily ad hoc in nature in differing frameworks, levels and standards, and can devolve by default to an individual who, whilst well-motivated, may lack the skills and training to properly perform the function, particularly when the vulnerable adult may be in crisis. ”

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

Lack of an identifiable single point of contact for vulnerable adults with complex needs

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence from the Head of Service for Safeguarding and Learning for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. She highlighted a long-standing gap in provision, which was described as extending across most if not all local authorities, for vulnerable adults who have complex needs, but who do not fall into the existing framework of social services, Care Act provision or formal mental health supervision. The effect of that gap is that there is no identifiable individual who is a single point of contact in such cases equivalent to a social worker or care co-ordinator. The result is that many vulnerable adults with complex needs have no such arrangements in place for contact, collating and sharing of information and deployment of services and assistance, support or safeguarding. Where such arrangements are in place, they are necessarily ad hoc in nature in differing frameworks, levels and standards, and can devolve by default to an individual who, whilst well-motivated, may lack the skills and training to properly perform the function, particularly when the vulnerable adult may be in crisis. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain clear ownership of multi-agency support and 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

Absence of arrangements for contact, information sharing and coordinated deployment of services, support or safeguarding

Wider context from the report

“The Inquest heard evidence from the Head of Service for Safeguarding and Learning for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. She highlighted a long-standing gap in provision, which was described as extending across most if not all local authorities, for vulnerable adults who have complex needs, but who do not fall into the existing framework of social services, Care Act provision or formal mental health supervision. The effect of that gap is that there is no identifiable individual who is a single point of contact in such cases equivalent to a social worker or care co-ordinator. The result is that many vulnerable adults with complex needs have no such arrangements in place for contact, collating and sharing of information and deployment of services and assistance, support or safeguarding. Where such arrangements are in place, they are necessarily ad hoc in nature in differing frameworks, levels and standards, and can devolve by default to an individual who, whilst well-motivated, may lack the skills and training to properly perform the function, particularly when the vulnerable adult may be in crisis. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain clear ownership of multi-agency support and care.

Open source report

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.1

  1. 1

    Publish a new five-year Suicide Prevention Strategy for England.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 March 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

Publish a new five-year Suicide Prevention Strategy for England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“More generally, 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 2 · response
Published 27 March 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026