PFD report

Simon William McAndrew · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Feb 2014•South 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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised5

  1. Failure to ensure key clinical staff can access important electronic information held in different NHS trusts
    Part of recurring concern: Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionablePart of recurring concern: Unreliable consolidation and access to patients’ cross-service clinical risk informationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
  2. Lack of formal written care plans with clear crisis-management guidance for distant residential homes
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety planning for acute mental-health deterioration and suicide riskPart of recurring concern: Unreliable care-planning processes
  3. Failure to share and recognise information about psychiatric responsibility between NHS trusts
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate coordination between hospitals during patient carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
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 key clinical staff can access important electronic information held in different NHS trusts

Wider context from the report

“Mr McAndrew had a drug misuse issue and a mental health issue. Each was dealt with by different specialist psychiatrists. After a long period of in-patient treatment at the Gordon Hospital Mr McAndrew was located in a residential home in another Borough. His key caseworker was not easily able to keep in touch with him. His methadone management was managed by Lantern House, a local NHS facility in the London Borough of Croydon. When acute psychiatric issues arose Lantern House staff ordinarily worked in close liaison with the local acute mental health trust (SLAM). At the material time it was not appreciated that Mr McAndrew’s psychiatric care remained with the Gordon Hospital. Correspondence from one trust to another was copied to the consultant psychiatrist at Lantern Hall but was not seen by her. This might have been because she was on leave when it was received and the copy letter was then scanned into the electronic patient record but not left in the consultant’s ‘in-tray’ for perusal on her return. An opportunity was missed to ensure effective communication with the Gordon Hospital staff. Junior staff, whether medical or nursing, had no ‘front page’ on the electronic patient record that contained information that the primary psychiatric care was held by the Gordon Hospital; so an inappropriate referral was made to SLAM. For so long as the national computer database for all NHS patients is a far-off ideal, some better method must surely be devised to ensure that key clinical staff can access important information held electronically in a different NHS Trust. This is especially important in psychiatric illness, where patients may not be able to provide the relevant, important information themselves. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable; Unreliable consolidation and access to patients’ cross-service clinical risk information; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated 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

Lack of formal written care plans with clear crisis-management guidance for distant residential homes

Wider context from the report

“Please will you also consider whether a formal, written care plan should be provided to the distant residential home with clear guidance as to what is to happen in defined circumstances of crisis. If the staff at Jordan Lodge had had the benefit of a care plan, they might have contacted the acute psychiatric team on 30th June 2011 to seek advice as how best to manage the immediate crisis. In the absence of a care plan, and with residential home staff who are not mental health professionals, the staff who were on duty on the day were left to deal with the crisis as best they could. Is that state of affairs capable of improvement? ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety planning for acute mental-health deterioration and suicide risk; Unreliable care-planning 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 share and recognise information about psychiatric responsibility between NHS trusts

Wider context from the report

“Mr McAndrew had a drug misuse issue and a mental health issue. Each was dealt with by different specialist psychiatrists. After a long period of in-patient treatment at the Gordon Hospital Mr McAndrew was located in a residential home in another Borough. His key caseworker was not easily able to keep in touch with him. His methadone management was managed by Lantern House, a local NHS facility in the London Borough of Croydon. When acute psychiatric issues arose Lantern House staff ordinarily worked in close liaison with the local acute mental health trust (SLAM). At the material time it was not appreciated that Mr McAndrew’s psychiatric care remained with the Gordon Hospital. Correspondence from one trust to another was copied to the consultant psychiatrist at Lantern Hall but was not seen by her. This might have been because she was on leave when it was received and the copy letter was then scanned into the electronic patient record but not left in the consultant’s ‘in-tray’ for perusal on her return. An opportunity was missed to ensure effective communication with the Gordon Hospital staff. Junior staff, whether medical or nursing, had no ‘front page’ on the electronic patient record that contained information that the primary psychiatric care was held by the Gordon Hospital; so an inappropriate referral was made to SLAM. For so long as the national computer database for all NHS patients is a far-off ideal, some better method must surely be devised to ensure that key clinical staff can access important information held electronically in a different NHS Trust. This is especially important in psychiatric illness, where patients may not be able to provide the relevant, important information themselves. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate coordination between hospitals during patient care; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated 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

Failure to provide prominent accurate and up-to-date information identifying the responsible mental health professional

Wider context from the report

“The Trust may also like to consider the unintended consequences of the use of different computer databases in Trusts and how this might better be managed. Even within individual computer systems, the evidence heard in this case suggests that the information may be available but often staff - particularly junior staff - do not know to look for it, may not know where to look for it and might not have the time to delve deep into the electronic record to find it. If a "front of file" note could be created in each case to record basic, essential information this may assist medical staff in discerning the appropriate mental health professional with overall care in any particular case. Of course, such information must be accurate and up-to-date. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable.

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

Inadequate contact with discharged in-patients living distant from their base hospital and key caseworkers

Wider context from the report

“An additional point is that where discharged in-patients are resident in homes far distant from the ‘base hospital’ and their key caseworkers, a better means must be devised of keeping in touch with the patient. In this case the key caseworker conceded that she did not keep in touch with Simon as much as would have been the case had he remained resident locally. At best regular contact would have been by telephone rather than face-to-face, albeit that occasional face-to-face contact was being arranged. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.