PFD report

Victoria Anne TAYLOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Sep 2025•North Yorkshire and York

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

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.

Concerns raised5

  1. Failure to coordinate multi-agency consideration of appropriate support
  2. Failure to offer or consider trauma treatment pathways through secondary mental health services
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate trauma-informed mental health services for people affected by trauma and domestic abuse
  3. Failure to explain the rationale, provision and NHS alternatives for a private psychotherapy referral
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable NHS-private mental-health discharge and referral arrangementsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable mental health referral pathways
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 coordinate multi-agency consideration of appropriate support

Wider context from the report

“Ms Taylor was assessed on three separate occasions between mid-May 2024 and the end of August 2024 by members of the Crisis and Acute Hospitals Liaison Teams. Ms Taylor was clear during all three assessments that her episodes of binge drinking and impulsive acts of self harm were the result of unresolved childhood trauma. Despite that, secondary mental health services considered there was no role for them in offering support or a treatment pathway to her. The safety plans agreed following these assessments were therefore limited and offered Ms Taylor no additional support beyond that which she was already accessing through the Horizons service. The assessment documents contained no discussion of treatment pathways for addressing trauma which might be accessed through the Community Mental Health Team, and no indication that such pathways had been offered to Ms Taylor and rejected by her. Instead, it was suggested at the second assessment that Ms Taylor may wish to refer herself to a named private psychotherapy service at some point in the future. There was no rationale included in the second assessment for naming this service, and no explanation of what it might provide or why this could not be offered on the NHS via the CMHT. When Ms Taylor indicated at her third assessment that she had left a message with this private provider and received no response from them, the third safety plan simply suggested she try again. Mental Health services were aware at the time of the second and third assessments that a number of agencies were involved with Ms Taylor, but no multi-agency meeting or approach was suggested or called by them to consider the most appropriate support for Ms Taylor. ”

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 offer or consider trauma treatment pathways through secondary mental health services

Wider context from the report

“Ms Taylor was assessed on three separate occasions between mid-May 2024 and the end of August 2024 by members of the Crisis and Acute Hospitals Liaison Teams. Ms Taylor was clear during all three assessments that her episodes of binge drinking and impulsive acts of self harm were the result of unresolved childhood trauma. Despite that, secondary mental health services considered there was no role for them in offering support or a treatment pathway to her. The safety plans agreed following these assessments were therefore limited and offered Ms Taylor no additional support beyond that which she was already accessing through the Horizons service. The assessment documents contained no discussion of treatment pathways for addressing trauma which might be accessed through the Community Mental Health Team, and no indication that such pathways had been offered to Ms Taylor and rejected by her. Instead, it was suggested at the second assessment that Ms Taylor may wish to refer herself to a named private psychotherapy service at some point in the future. There was no rationale included in the second assessment for naming this service, and no explanation of what it might provide or why this could not be offered on the NHS via the CMHT. When Ms Taylor indicated at her third assessment that she had left a message with this private provider and received no response from them, the third safety plan simply suggested she try again. Mental Health services were aware at the time of the second and third assessments that a number of agencies were involved with Ms Taylor, but no multi-agency meeting or approach was suggested or called by them to consider the most appropriate support for Ms Taylor. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate trauma-informed mental health services for people affected by trauma and domestic abuse.

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 explain the rationale, provision and NHS alternatives for a private psychotherapy referral

Wider context from the report

“Ms Taylor was assessed on three separate occasions between mid-May 2024 and the end of August 2024 by members of the Crisis and Acute Hospitals Liaison Teams. Ms Taylor was clear during all three assessments that her episodes of binge drinking and impulsive acts of self harm were the result of unresolved childhood trauma. Despite that, secondary mental health services considered there was no role for them in offering support or a treatment pathway to her. The safety plans agreed following these assessments were therefore limited and offered Ms Taylor no additional support beyond that which she was already accessing through the Horizons service. The assessment documents contained no discussion of treatment pathways for addressing trauma which might be accessed through the Community Mental Health Team, and no indication that such pathways had been offered to Ms Taylor and rejected by her. Instead, it was suggested at the second assessment that Ms Taylor may wish to refer herself to a named private psychotherapy service at some point in the future. There was no rationale included in the second assessment for naming this service, and no explanation of what it might provide or why this could not be offered on the NHS via the CMHT. When Ms Taylor indicated at her third assessment that she had left a message with this private provider and received no response from them, the third safety plan simply suggested she try again. Mental Health services were aware at the time of the second and third assessments that a number of agencies were involved with Ms Taylor, but no multi-agency meeting or approach was suggested or called by them to consider the most appropriate support for Ms Taylor. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable NHS-private mental-health discharge and referral arrangements; Unreliable mental health referral pathways.

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 an effective alternative when a referred provider does not respond

Wider context from the report

“Ms Taylor was assessed on three separate occasions between mid-May 2024 and the end of August 2024 by members of the Crisis and Acute Hospitals Liaison Teams. Ms Taylor was clear during all three assessments that her episodes of binge drinking and impulsive acts of self harm were the result of unresolved childhood trauma. Despite that, secondary mental health services considered there was no role for them in offering support or a treatment pathway to her. The safety plans agreed following these assessments were therefore limited and offered Ms Taylor no additional support beyond that which she was already accessing through the Horizons service. The assessment documents contained no discussion of treatment pathways for addressing trauma which might be accessed through the Community Mental Health Team, and no indication that such pathways had been offered to Ms Taylor and rejected by her. Instead, it was suggested at the second assessment that Ms Taylor may wish to refer herself to a named private psychotherapy service at some point in the future. There was no rationale included in the second assessment for naming this service, and no explanation of what it might provide or why this could not be offered on the NHS via the CMHT. When Ms Taylor indicated at her third assessment that she had left a message with this private provider and received no response from them, the third safety plan simply suggested she try again. Mental Health services were aware at the time of the second and third assessments that a number of agencies were involved with Ms Taylor, but no multi-agency meeting or approach was suggested or called by them to consider the most appropriate support for Ms Taylor. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable interim mental health support during care transitions; Unreliable mental health referral pathways.

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 of safety plans to provide additional support responsive to identified needs

Wider context from the report

“Ms Taylor was assessed on three separate occasions between mid-May 2024 and the end of August 2024 by members of the Crisis and Acute Hospitals Liaison Teams. Ms Taylor was clear during all three assessments that her episodes of binge drinking and impulsive acts of self harm were the result of unresolved childhood trauma. Despite that, secondary mental health services considered there was no role for them in offering support or a treatment pathway to her. The safety plans agreed following these assessments were therefore limited and offered Ms Taylor no additional support beyond that which she was already accessing through the Horizons service. The assessment documents contained no discussion of treatment pathways for addressing trauma which might be accessed through the Community Mental Health Team, and no indication that such pathways had been offered to Ms Taylor and rejected by her. Instead, it was suggested at the second assessment that Ms Taylor may wish to refer herself to a named private psychotherapy service at some point in the future. There was no rationale included in the second assessment for naming this service, and no explanation of what it might provide or why this could not be offered on the NHS via the CMHT. When Ms Taylor indicated at her third assessment that she had left a message with this private provider and received no response from them, the third safety plan simply suggested she try again. Mental Health services were aware at the time of the second and third assessments that a number of agencies were involved with Ms Taylor, but no multi-agency meeting or approach was suggested or called by them to consider the most appropriate support for Ms Taylor. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably develop and review risk-reduction plans; Inadequate safety planning for acute mental-health deterioration and suicide risk.

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026