PFD report

Danielle Monique Christina JONES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Oct 2025•Black Country

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised3

  1. Failure to record clinical rationale for continued repeat prescribing in light of overdose risk
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribingPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate recording of medication prescribing decisions
  2. Continued prescribing of repeat medications in large amounts at 28-day frequency after overdose disclosure
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribingPart of recurring concern: Medication quantity controls failing to prevent unsafe access to excessive amountsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable review and monitoring of repeat prescriptionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
  3. Failure to conduct medication reviews after overdose disclosures and related concerns
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide sufficient GP involvement in patient carePart of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely clinical follow-up after medication prescribingPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably conduct clinically required medication reviewsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable review and monitoring of repeat prescriptions
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.3

  1. Action

    Amend the self-harm risk-assessment template to record medication review discussions, stockpiling, medication safety, prescription quantity, and medication supervision options.

    Stated by Your Health Partnership PCNStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 October 2025.
  2. Action

    Amend the self-harm follow-up policy to require medication review and consideration of reducing prescription quantities where ongoing risk exists.

    Stated by Your Health Partnership PCNStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 October 2025.
  3. Action

    Expand the annual proactive self-harm follow-up audit to record medication reviews and discussions about prescribed medication quantities.

    Stated by Your Health Partnership PCNStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 October 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    NICE Quality Standard 34 does not specifically require medication review following self-harm.

    Stated by Your Health Partnership PCNDisputes 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

Failure to record clinical rationale for continued repeat prescribing in light of overdose risk

Wider context from the report

“5. Although Miss Jones was signposted to Mental Health Services by her GP, her prescription medications do not appear to have been reviewed and the GP surgery continued to prescribed repeat medications in large amounts at 28 day frequency without any further review subsequent to her appointment on 25/2/25. 6. She was issued with repeat prescriptions on 3 occasions subsequent to her appointment on 24th and 25th February 2025 when she self-closed an overdose of prescription medication. 7. On 6/3/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████ ████████ Miss Jones was prescribed 8. On 27/3/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████ Miss Jones was prescribed Amitriptyline ████████ Diazepam ████████ lamotrigine ████████ mirtazapine ████████ pregabalin ████████ zopiclone 9. On 28/4/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████████████████████████████████████ Miss Jones was prescribed ████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 10. Miss Jones died on 13/5/25 from the combined toxic effects of a fatal level of amitriptyline along with an excessive amount of zopiclone. 11. The clinical lead at Cranstoun had previously had discussions with the GP about reducing Miss Jones prescription for zopiclone. 12. No medication review appears to have taken place after Miss Jones self-reported overdose of prescribed medication nor after concerns were raised by Cranstoun. 13. GMC Guidance requires a practitioner to prescribe drugs or treatment including repeat prescriptions, only when they have adequate knowledge of the patient’s health and are satisfied that the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs and to keep clear, accurate and legible records, reporting the relevant clinical findings, the decisions made. 14. There is no clinical rationale recorded for the continued prescribing of Miss Jones’s repeat medications in terms of managing Miss Jones’s risk of overdose given her recent disclosure e.g. reducing the frequency to 7 days rather than 28 days. 15. There is no evidence of any medication review having taken place after Miss Jones’s disclosure of overdose of prescription medication or prior to her repeat prescriptions being issued on 6/2/25, 27/3/25 or 28/4/25. Her last reported medication review was on 23/8/24. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribing; Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisions; Inadequate recording of medication prescribing decisions.

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

Continued prescribing of repeat medications in large amounts at 28-day frequency after overdose disclosure

Wider context from the report

“5. Although Miss Jones was signposted to Mental Health Services by her GP, her prescription medications do not appear to have been reviewed and the GP surgery continued to prescribed repeat medications in large amounts at 28 day frequency without any further review subsequent to her appointment on 25/2/25. 6. She was issued with repeat prescriptions on 3 occasions subsequent to her appointment on 24th and 25th February 2025 when she self-closed an overdose of prescription medication. 7. On 6/3/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████ ████████ Miss Jones was prescribed 8. On 27/3/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████ Miss Jones was prescribed Amitriptyline ████████ Diazepam ████████ lamotrigine ████████ mirtazapine ████████ pregabalin ████████ zopiclone 9. On 28/4/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████████████████████████████████████ Miss Jones was prescribed ████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 10. Miss Jones died on 13/5/25 from the combined toxic effects of a fatal level of amitriptyline along with an excessive amount of zopiclone. 11. The clinical lead at Cranstoun had previously had discussions with the GP about reducing Miss Jones prescription for zopiclone. 12. No medication review appears to have taken place after Miss Jones self-reported overdose of prescribed medication nor after concerns were raised by Cranstoun. 13. GMC Guidance requires a practitioner to prescribe drugs or treatment including repeat prescriptions, only when they have adequate knowledge of the patient’s health and are satisfied that the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs and to keep clear, accurate and legible records, reporting the relevant clinical findings, the decisions made. 14. There is no clinical rationale recorded for the continued prescribing of Miss Jones’s repeat medications in terms of managing Miss Jones’s risk of overdose given her recent disclosure e.g. reducing the frequency to 7 days rather than 28 days. 15. There is no evidence of any medication review having taken place after Miss Jones’s disclosure of overdose of prescription medication or prior to her repeat prescriptions being issued on 6/2/25, 27/3/25 or 28/4/25. Her last reported medication review was on 23/8/24. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to apply overdose-risk safeguards to medication prescribing; Medication quantity controls failing to prevent unsafe access to excessive amounts; Unreliable review and monitoring of repeat prescriptions; Unsafe medication prescribing.

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 conduct medication reviews after overdose disclosures and related concerns

Wider context from the report

“5. Although Miss Jones was signposted to Mental Health Services by her GP, her prescription medications do not appear to have been reviewed and the GP surgery continued to prescribed repeat medications in large amounts at 28 day frequency without any further review subsequent to her appointment on 25/2/25. 6. She was issued with repeat prescriptions on 3 occasions subsequent to her appointment on 24th and 25th February 2025 when she self-closed an overdose of prescription medication. 7. On 6/3/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████ ████████ Miss Jones was prescribed 8. On 27/3/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████ Miss Jones was prescribed Amitriptyline ████████ Diazepam ████████ lamotrigine ████████ mirtazapine ████████ pregabalin ████████ zopiclone 9. On 28/4/25 despite a recent self-reported admitted overdose of prescription medication of ████████ ████████████████████████████████████████ Miss Jones was prescribed ████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 10. Miss Jones died on 13/5/25 from the combined toxic effects of a fatal level of amitriptyline along with an excessive amount of zopiclone. 11. The clinical lead at Cranstoun had previously had discussions with the GP about reducing Miss Jones prescription for zopiclone. 12. No medication review appears to have taken place after Miss Jones self-reported overdose of prescribed medication nor after concerns were raised by Cranstoun. 13. GMC Guidance requires a practitioner to prescribe drugs or treatment including repeat prescriptions, only when they have adequate knowledge of the patient’s health and are satisfied that the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs and to keep clear, accurate and legible records, reporting the relevant clinical findings, the decisions made. 14. There is no clinical rationale recorded for the continued prescribing of Miss Jones’s repeat medications in terms of managing Miss Jones’s risk of overdose given her recent disclosure e.g. reducing the frequency to 7 days rather than 28 days. 15. There is no evidence of any medication review having taken place after Miss Jones’s disclosure of overdose of prescription medication or prior to her repeat prescriptions being issued on 6/2/25, 27/3/25 or 28/4/25. Her last reported medication review was on 23/8/24. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide sufficient GP involvement in patient care; Failure to provide timely clinical follow-up after medication prescribing; Failure to reliably conduct clinically required medication reviews; Unreliable review and monitoring of repeat prescriptions.

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

Amend the self-harm risk-assessment template to record medication review discussions, stockpiling, medication safety, prescription quantity, and medication supervision options.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will amend our risk assessment template to include a mental health medication review code and free text advice regarding the following with a free text box to record discussions.”

Source location

Response from Your Health Partnership Regis Medical Centre
Page 3 · response
Published 29 October 2025

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

Amend the self-harm follow-up policy to require medication review and consideration of reducing prescription quantities where ongoing risk exists.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will amend our follow up policy to specifically mention the need for medication review at the time of pro-active follow up, and in particular to consider reducing the amount of medication per prescription if there is any ongoing risk of further self-harm and especially with high-risk medications.”

Source location

Response from Your Health Partnership Regis Medical Centre
Page 3 · response
Published 29 October 2025

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

Expand the annual proactive self-harm follow-up audit to record medication reviews and discussions about prescribed medication quantities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will re-launch this amended policy in January 2026 with our clinicians and add the recording of medication review and recording of consideration of reducing amount of medication on each issue as part of the annual audit program.”

Source location

Response from Your Health Partnership Regis Medical Centre
Page 4 · response
Published 29 October 2025

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

NICE Quality Standard 34 does not specifically require medication review following self-harm.

Verbatim wording from the response

“QS 34 states people who have self-harmed have an initial assessment of physical health, mental state, safeguarding concerns, social circumstances and immediate concerns about their safety. However, it does not specifically state they require a medication review.”

Source location

Response from Your Health Partnership Regis Medical Centre
Page 2 · response
Published 29 October 2025

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

    Share learning from the event with the Acute Trust patient safety team for wider dissemination.

    Stated by Your Health Partnership PCNStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 October 2025.
  2. 2

    Share learning from the event with clinicians through the monthly clinical update and the next protected face-to-face learning event.

    Stated by Your Health Partnership PCNStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 October 2025.

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 learning from the event with the Acute Trust patient safety team for wider dissemination.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The learning from this event will be shared with clinicians via our monthly clinical update but also added to the agenda of our next face to face protected learning event for our GP’s in the new year. This learning has also been shared with our Acute Trust patient safety team colleagues for wider dissemination of learning.”

Source location

Response from Your Health Partnership Regis Medical Centre
Page 4 · response
Published 29 October 2025

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 learning from the event with clinicians through the monthly clinical update and the next protected face-to-face learning event.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The learning from this event will be shared with clinicians via our monthly clinical update but also added to the agenda of our next face to face protected learning event for our GP’s in the new year. This learning has also been shared with our Acute Trust patient safety team colleagues for wider dissemination of learning.”

Source location

Response from Your Health Partnership Regis Medical Centre
Page 4 · response
Published 29 October 2025

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