PFD report

Bryan Andrews and Mary Andrews · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Oct 2024•South Yorkshire (Western)

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised7

  1. Failure of referral communication channels to provide reliable access and confirmation
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence
  2. Delays in triaging and progressing referrals for mental health care
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable mental health referral pathways
  3. Failure to communicate clinically relevant information between services about epilepsy and psychosis
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of patient-care information between clinical staffPart 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.

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.2

  1. Action

    Provide Neurology Department with electronic crisis assessments and outcome plans for service users receiving neurological treatment.

    Stated by Sheffield Health Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 October 2024.
  2. Action

    Include discharge summaries in annual service record-keeping audits to verify timely transmission to GPs and required quality standards.

    Stated by Sheffield Health Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 October 2024.

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

  1. Position

    No further action is proposed for Single Point of Access referrals because that service no longer operates and referrals now enter individual services.

    Stated by Sheffield Health Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 referral communication channels to provide reliable access and confirmation

Wider context from the report

“There was a lack of communication between services about the relationship between the diagnosis of epilepsy and the psychotic symptoms experienced by the person responsible for the deaths. This led to significant time lapses in treatment and rejection of referrals, most notably: i. On 18 November 2020 an urgent referral was made to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner, concerned about his prolonged suicidal ideation. He was referred back to his General Practitioner by the Single Point of Access Team with a request that the General Practitioner refer him to access the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service. ii. On 20 November 2020 his General Practitioner referred him to the Single Point of Access Team again, requesting they liaise with the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service as per Trust guidelines. iii. Correspondence between the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service and the Single Point of Access Team revealed that whilst the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service offered work on living with chronic conditions, they did not have a programme specific to epilepsy. A referral to the Neurology Therapy Service was made and it was decided a request to the General Practitioner for the mental health nurse in the surgery to offer an assessment was appropriate. The surgery were not informed of this. iv. On 16 December 2020 the Single Point of Access Team received a referral from a consultant neurologist requesting a medication review as his anxiety levels were affecting his epilepsy treatment. It was felt at that as the General Practitioner was reviewing his medication, a review wasn’t required. This was not communicated to the consultant neurologist. v. On 29 April 2022 he called the Single Point of Access Team saying he was having a serious psychotic episode and thought he was going to kill someone. The call was treated as a crisis call during which he decided to attend the emergency department. Once there he was assessed by the Liaison Psychiatry Team. He was referred to the Home Treatment Team, but his consultant neurologist was not informed. vi. On 3 May 2022 a trial of anti-psychotic medication was discussed at a medical review. The required consultant review of whether to prescribe anti-psychotic medication with his epilepsy medication was not carried out. vii. On 4 May 2022 a referral to the Early Intervention Service was rejected as not meeting the criteria for first episode psychosis, despite clear evidence of psychosis in the assessment by the Liaison Psychiatry Team on 29 April 2022 and in subsequent contacts with the Home Treatment Team. viii. On 5 May 2022 a first referral was made to the Emotional Wellbeing Service via email asking for their input into his care. The email was sent to an address not manned daily. When a response was provided it was unclear whether a new treatment episode had been opened. ix. On 09 May 2022 he was discharged from the Home Treatment Team. The discharge was reliant on Emotional Wellbeing Service intervention and a follow up from his General Practitioner. A discharge summary was not sent to his General Practitioner. x. On 4 October 2022 a referral was sent to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner that he was presenting as paranoid and delusional with suicidal ideation. A screen for urgency found this was a routine referral. The referral was triaged on 22 November 2022 when he was invited to contact the Single Point of Access Team for a further discussion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable review and action on clinically significant incoming correspondence.

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

Delays in triaging and progressing referrals for mental health care

Wider context from the report

“There was a lack of communication between services about the relationship between the diagnosis of epilepsy and the psychotic symptoms experienced by the person responsible for the deaths. This led to significant time lapses in treatment and rejection of referrals, most notably: i. On 18 November 2020 an urgent referral was made to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner, concerned about his prolonged suicidal ideation. He was referred back to his General Practitioner by the Single Point of Access Team with a request that the General Practitioner refer him to access the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service. ii. On 20 November 2020 his General Practitioner referred him to the Single Point of Access Team again, requesting they liaise with the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service as per Trust guidelines. iii. Correspondence between the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service and the Single Point of Access Team revealed that whilst the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service offered work on living with chronic conditions, they did not have a programme specific to epilepsy. A referral to the Neurology Therapy Service was made and it was decided a request to the General Practitioner for the mental health nurse in the surgery to offer an assessment was appropriate. The surgery were not informed of this. iv. On 16 December 2020 the Single Point of Access Team received a referral from a consultant neurologist requesting a medication review as his anxiety levels were affecting his epilepsy treatment. It was felt at that as the General Practitioner was reviewing his medication, a review wasn’t required. This was not communicated to the consultant neurologist. v. On 29 April 2022 he called the Single Point of Access Team saying he was having a serious psychotic episode and thought he was going to kill someone. The call was treated as a crisis call during which he decided to attend the emergency department. Once there he was assessed by the Liaison Psychiatry Team. He was referred to the Home Treatment Team, but his consultant neurologist was not informed. vi. On 3 May 2022 a trial of anti-psychotic medication was discussed at a medical review. The required consultant review of whether to prescribe anti-psychotic medication with his epilepsy medication was not carried out. vii. On 4 May 2022 a referral to the Early Intervention Service was rejected as not meeting the criteria for first episode psychosis, despite clear evidence of psychosis in the assessment by the Liaison Psychiatry Team on 29 April 2022 and in subsequent contacts with the Home Treatment Team. viii. On 5 May 2022 a first referral was made to the Emotional Wellbeing Service via email asking for their input into his care. The email was sent to an address not manned daily. When a response was provided it was unclear whether a new treatment episode had been opened. ix. On 09 May 2022 he was discharged from the Home Treatment Team. The discharge was reliant on Emotional Wellbeing Service intervention and a follow up from his General Practitioner. A discharge summary was not sent to his General Practitioner. x. On 4 October 2022 a referral was sent to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner that he was presenting as paranoid and delusional with suicidal ideation. A screen for urgency found this was a routine referral. The referral was triaged on 22 November 2022 when he was invited to contact the Single Point of Access Team for a further discussion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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 communicate clinically relevant information between services about epilepsy and psychosis

Wider context from the report

“There was a lack of communication between services about the relationship between the diagnosis of epilepsy and the psychotic symptoms experienced by the person responsible for the deaths. This led to significant time lapses in treatment and rejection of referrals, most notably: i. On 18 November 2020 an urgent referral was made to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner, concerned about his prolonged suicidal ideation. He was referred back to his General Practitioner by the Single Point of Access Team with a request that the General Practitioner refer him to access the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service. ii. On 20 November 2020 his General Practitioner referred him to the Single Point of Access Team again, requesting they liaise with the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service as per Trust guidelines. iii. Correspondence between the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service and the Single Point of Access Team revealed that whilst the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service offered work on living with chronic conditions, they did not have a programme specific to epilepsy. A referral to the Neurology Therapy Service was made and it was decided a request to the General Practitioner for the mental health nurse in the surgery to offer an assessment was appropriate. The surgery were not informed of this. iv. On 16 December 2020 the Single Point of Access Team received a referral from a consultant neurologist requesting a medication review as his anxiety levels were affecting his epilepsy treatment. It was felt at that as the General Practitioner was reviewing his medication, a review wasn’t required. This was not communicated to the consultant neurologist. v. On 29 April 2022 he called the Single Point of Access Team saying he was having a serious psychotic episode and thought he was going to kill someone. The call was treated as a crisis call during which he decided to attend the emergency department. Once there he was assessed by the Liaison Psychiatry Team. He was referred to the Home Treatment Team, but his consultant neurologist was not informed. vi. On 3 May 2022 a trial of anti-psychotic medication was discussed at a medical review. The required consultant review of whether to prescribe anti-psychotic medication with his epilepsy medication was not carried out. vii. On 4 May 2022 a referral to the Early Intervention Service was rejected as not meeting the criteria for first episode psychosis, despite clear evidence of psychosis in the assessment by the Liaison Psychiatry Team on 29 April 2022 and in subsequent contacts with the Home Treatment Team. viii. On 5 May 2022 a first referral was made to the Emotional Wellbeing Service via email asking for their input into his care. The email was sent to an address not manned daily. When a response was provided it was unclear whether a new treatment episode had been opened. ix. On 09 May 2022 he was discharged from the Home Treatment Team. The discharge was reliant on Emotional Wellbeing Service intervention and a follow up from his General Practitioner. A discharge summary was not sent to his General Practitioner. x. On 4 October 2022 a referral was sent to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner that he was presenting as paranoid and delusional with suicidal ideation. A screen for urgency found this was a routine referral. The referral was triaged on 22 November 2022 when he was invited to contact the Single Point of Access Team for a further discussion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services; Unreliable communication of patient-care information between clinical staff; 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 send discharge summaries to the General Practitioner

Wider context from the report

“There was a lack of communication between services about the relationship between the diagnosis of epilepsy and the psychotic symptoms experienced by the person responsible for the deaths. This led to significant time lapses in treatment and rejection of referrals, most notably: i. On 18 November 2020 an urgent referral was made to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner, concerned about his prolonged suicidal ideation. He was referred back to his General Practitioner by the Single Point of Access Team with a request that the General Practitioner refer him to access the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service. ii. On 20 November 2020 his General Practitioner referred him to the Single Point of Access Team again, requesting they liaise with the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service as per Trust guidelines. iii. Correspondence between the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service and the Single Point of Access Team revealed that whilst the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service offered work on living with chronic conditions, they did not have a programme specific to epilepsy. A referral to the Neurology Therapy Service was made and it was decided a request to the General Practitioner for the mental health nurse in the surgery to offer an assessment was appropriate. The surgery were not informed of this. iv. On 16 December 2020 the Single Point of Access Team received a referral from a consultant neurologist requesting a medication review as his anxiety levels were affecting his epilepsy treatment. It was felt at that as the General Practitioner was reviewing his medication, a review wasn’t required. This was not communicated to the consultant neurologist. v. On 29 April 2022 he called the Single Point of Access Team saying he was having a serious psychotic episode and thought he was going to kill someone. The call was treated as a crisis call during which he decided to attend the emergency department. Once there he was assessed by the Liaison Psychiatry Team. He was referred to the Home Treatment Team, but his consultant neurologist was not informed. vi. On 3 May 2022 a trial of anti-psychotic medication was discussed at a medical review. The required consultant review of whether to prescribe anti-psychotic medication with his epilepsy medication was not carried out. vii. On 4 May 2022 a referral to the Early Intervention Service was rejected as not meeting the criteria for first episode psychosis, despite clear evidence of psychosis in the assessment by the Liaison Psychiatry Team on 29 April 2022 and in subsequent contacts with the Home Treatment Team. viii. On 5 May 2022 a first referral was made to the Emotional Wellbeing Service via email asking for their input into his care. The email was sent to an address not manned daily. When a response was provided it was unclear whether a new treatment episode had been opened. ix. On 09 May 2022 he was discharged from the Home Treatment Team. The discharge was reliant on Emotional Wellbeing Service intervention and a follow up from his General Practitioner. A discharge summary was not sent to his General Practitioner. x. On 4 October 2022 a referral was sent to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner that he was presenting as paranoid and delusional with suicidal ideation. A screen for urgency found this was a routine referral. The referral was triaged on 22 November 2022 when he was invited to contact the Single Point of Access Team for a further discussion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services.

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 identify urgency in referrals involving paranoia, delusions and suicidal ideation

Wider context from the report

“There was a lack of communication between services about the relationship between the diagnosis of epilepsy and the psychotic symptoms experienced by the person responsible for the deaths. This led to significant time lapses in treatment and rejection of referrals, most notably: i. On 18 November 2020 an urgent referral was made to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner, concerned about his prolonged suicidal ideation. He was referred back to his General Practitioner by the Single Point of Access Team with a request that the General Practitioner refer him to access the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service. ii. On 20 November 2020 his General Practitioner referred him to the Single Point of Access Team again, requesting they liaise with the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service as per Trust guidelines. iii. Correspondence between the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service and the Single Point of Access Team revealed that whilst the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service offered work on living with chronic conditions, they did not have a programme specific to epilepsy. A referral to the Neurology Therapy Service was made and it was decided a request to the General Practitioner for the mental health nurse in the surgery to offer an assessment was appropriate. The surgery were not informed of this. iv. On 16 December 2020 the Single Point of Access Team received a referral from a consultant neurologist requesting a medication review as his anxiety levels were affecting his epilepsy treatment. It was felt at that as the General Practitioner was reviewing his medication, a review wasn’t required. This was not communicated to the consultant neurologist. v. On 29 April 2022 he called the Single Point of Access Team saying he was having a serious psychotic episode and thought he was going to kill someone. The call was treated as a crisis call during which he decided to attend the emergency department. Once there he was assessed by the Liaison Psychiatry Team. He was referred to the Home Treatment Team, but his consultant neurologist was not informed. vi. On 3 May 2022 a trial of anti-psychotic medication was discussed at a medical review. The required consultant review of whether to prescribe anti-psychotic medication with his epilepsy medication was not carried out. vii. On 4 May 2022 a referral to the Early Intervention Service was rejected as not meeting the criteria for first episode psychosis, despite clear evidence of psychosis in the assessment by the Liaison Psychiatry Team on 29 April 2022 and in subsequent contacts with the Home Treatment Team. viii. On 5 May 2022 a first referral was made to the Emotional Wellbeing Service via email asking for their input into his care. The email was sent to an address not manned daily. When a response was provided it was unclear whether a new treatment episode had been opened. ix. On 09 May 2022 he was discharged from the Home Treatment Team. The discharge was reliant on Emotional Wellbeing Service intervention and a follow up from his General Practitioner. A discharge summary was not sent to his General Practitioner. x. On 4 October 2022 a referral was sent to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner that he was presenting as paranoid and delusional with suicidal ideation. A screen for urgency found this was a routine referral. The referral was triaged on 22 November 2022 when he was invited to contact the Single Point of Access Team for a further discussion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable identification of urgent mental-health needs during initial screening; Unreliable prioritisation of patient reviews; Unreliable urgent mental health referral and assessment 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 carry out consultant review of antipsychotic medication alongside epilepsy medication

Wider context from the report

“There was a lack of communication between services about the relationship between the diagnosis of epilepsy and the psychotic symptoms experienced by the person responsible for the deaths. This led to significant time lapses in treatment and rejection of referrals, most notably: i. On 18 November 2020 an urgent referral was made to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner, concerned about his prolonged suicidal ideation. He was referred back to his General Practitioner by the Single Point of Access Team with a request that the General Practitioner refer him to access the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service. ii. On 20 November 2020 his General Practitioner referred him to the Single Point of Access Team again, requesting they liaise with the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service as per Trust guidelines. iii. Correspondence between the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service and the Single Point of Access Team revealed that whilst the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service offered work on living with chronic conditions, they did not have a programme specific to epilepsy. A referral to the Neurology Therapy Service was made and it was decided a request to the General Practitioner for the mental health nurse in the surgery to offer an assessment was appropriate. The surgery were not informed of this. iv. On 16 December 2020 the Single Point of Access Team received a referral from a consultant neurologist requesting a medication review as his anxiety levels were affecting his epilepsy treatment. It was felt at that as the General Practitioner was reviewing his medication, a review wasn’t required. This was not communicated to the consultant neurologist. v. On 29 April 2022 he called the Single Point of Access Team saying he was having a serious psychotic episode and thought he was going to kill someone. The call was treated as a crisis call during which he decided to attend the emergency department. Once there he was assessed by the Liaison Psychiatry Team. He was referred to the Home Treatment Team, but his consultant neurologist was not informed. vi. On 3 May 2022 a trial of anti-psychotic medication was discussed at a medical review. The required consultant review of whether to prescribe anti-psychotic medication with his epilepsy medication was not carried out. vii. On 4 May 2022 a referral to the Early Intervention Service was rejected as not meeting the criteria for first episode psychosis, despite clear evidence of psychosis in the assessment by the Liaison Psychiatry Team on 29 April 2022 and in subsequent contacts with the Home Treatment Team. viii. On 5 May 2022 a first referral was made to the Emotional Wellbeing Service via email asking for their input into his care. The email was sent to an address not manned daily. When a response was provided it was unclear whether a new treatment episode had been opened. ix. On 09 May 2022 he was discharged from the Home Treatment Team. The discharge was reliant on Emotional Wellbeing Service intervention and a follow up from his General Practitioner. A discharge summary was not sent to his General Practitioner. x. On 4 October 2022 a referral was sent to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner that he was presenting as paranoid and delusional with suicidal ideation. A screen for urgency found this was a routine referral. The referral was triaged on 22 November 2022 when he was invited to contact the Single Point of Access Team for a further discussion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in consultant review of patients.

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

Inappropriate rejection of referrals despite evidence of psychosis

Wider context from the report

“There was a lack of communication between services about the relationship between the diagnosis of epilepsy and the psychotic symptoms experienced by the person responsible for the deaths. This led to significant time lapses in treatment and rejection of referrals, most notably: i. On 18 November 2020 an urgent referral was made to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner, concerned about his prolonged suicidal ideation. He was referred back to his General Practitioner by the Single Point of Access Team with a request that the General Practitioner refer him to access the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service. ii. On 20 November 2020 his General Practitioner referred him to the Single Point of Access Team again, requesting they liaise with the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service as per Trust guidelines. iii. Correspondence between the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service and the Single Point of Access Team revealed that whilst the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service offered work on living with chronic conditions, they did not have a programme specific to epilepsy. A referral to the Neurology Therapy Service was made and it was decided a request to the General Practitioner for the mental health nurse in the surgery to offer an assessment was appropriate. The surgery were not informed of this. iv. On 16 December 2020 the Single Point of Access Team received a referral from a consultant neurologist requesting a medication review as his anxiety levels were affecting his epilepsy treatment. It was felt at that as the General Practitioner was reviewing his medication, a review wasn’t required. This was not communicated to the consultant neurologist. v. On 29 April 2022 he called the Single Point of Access Team saying he was having a serious psychotic episode and thought he was going to kill someone. The call was treated as a crisis call during which he decided to attend the emergency department. Once there he was assessed by the Liaison Psychiatry Team. He was referred to the Home Treatment Team, but his consultant neurologist was not informed. vi. On 3 May 2022 a trial of anti-psychotic medication was discussed at a medical review. The required consultant review of whether to prescribe anti-psychotic medication with his epilepsy medication was not carried out. vii. On 4 May 2022 a referral to the Early Intervention Service was rejected as not meeting the criteria for first episode psychosis, despite clear evidence of psychosis in the assessment by the Liaison Psychiatry Team on 29 April 2022 and in subsequent contacts with the Home Treatment Team. viii. On 5 May 2022 a first referral was made to the Emotional Wellbeing Service via email asking for their input into his care. The email was sent to an address not manned daily. When a response was provided it was unclear whether a new treatment episode had been opened. ix. On 09 May 2022 he was discharged from the Home Treatment Team. The discharge was reliant on Emotional Wellbeing Service intervention and a follow up from his General Practitioner. A discharge summary was not sent to his General Practitioner. x. On 4 October 2022 a referral was sent to the Single Point of Access Team by his General Practitioner that he was presenting as paranoid and delusional with suicidal ideation. A screen for urgency found this was a routine referral. The referral was triaged on 22 November 2022 when he was invited to contact the Single Point of Access Team for a further discussion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable mental health referral pathways.

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

Provide Neurology Department with electronic crisis assessments and outcome plans for service users receiving neurological treatment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Single Point of Access Service within SHSC is no longer in operation, following a transformation programme of our Urgent and Crisis Services. We have, therefore, not set out any actions in this response relating to how this service deals with referrals, given that referrals now go into each individual service. We are committed to taking the following actions:”

Source location

Response from Sheffield Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 8 October 2024

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

Include discharge summaries in annual service record-keeping audits to verify timely transmission to GPs and required quality standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Discharge summaries are electronically sent to GPs through our electronic patient record system. In this case, although the discharge summary was created on 9 May 2022, the day of discharge, it was further edited on 13 May 2022. It appears that because the discharge”

Source location

Response from Sheffield Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 8 October 2024

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

No further action is proposed for Single Point of Access referrals because that service no longer operates and referrals now enter individual services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Single Point of Access Service within SHSC is no longer in operation, following a transformation programme of our Urgent and Crisis Services. We have, therefore, not set out any actions in this response relating to how this service deals with referrals, given that referrals now go into each individual service. We are committed to taking the following actions:”

Source location

Response from Sheffield Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 8 October 2024

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

    Establish a six-monthly shared learning forum with the Neurology Department on interactions between neurological disorders and mental health problems.

    Stated by Sheffield Health Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 October 2024.
  2. 2

    Monitor and report progress on these actions to the Executive Team and Trust Board.

    Stated by Sheffield Health Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 October 2024.

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

Establish a six-monthly shared learning forum with the Neurology Department on interactions between neurological disorders and mental health problems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. We believe that strengthening relationships, specifically with the Neurology Department, will be beneficial for both organisations and for our shared care service users. We have committed to establishing a six-monthly shared learning forum to engender understanding of the interactions between neurological disorders, such as epilepsy and mental health problems.”

Source location

Response from Sheffield Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 8 October 2024

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

Monitor and report progress on these actions to the Executive Team and Trust Board.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I trust that this addresses the issues raised to your satisfaction. These actions will be monitored and reported to the Executive Team and Trust Board. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any additional information regarding our actions.”

Source location

Response from Sheffield Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 8 October 2024

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026