PFD report

Mr Brian MacLean · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Sep 2017•Manchester City

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
7

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 raised7

  1. Failure of Social Services to proactively pursue referrals and understand fire risks through joined-up interagency working
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable social care referral pathways
  2. Failure to identify people potentially at risk of fire in their premises
  3. Lack of a GPHA process to automatically consider fire risks and prevention
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.5

  1. Action

    Review contacts closed or classified as non-urgent by the two officers.

    Stated by Manchester City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 September 2017.
  2. Action

    Undertake regular audits of Contact Centre work through the Quality Assurance Team.

    Stated by Manchester City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 September 2017.
  3. Action

    Continue raising adult social care staff awareness of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service offerings through partnership meetings and consideration of extended partnership working.

    Stated by Manchester City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 September 2017.

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 Social Services to proactively pursue referrals and understand fire risks through joined-up interagency working

Wider context from the report

“1. That Social Services did not take a more proactive role in pursuing any referral and understanding the risks presented by the deceased. This requires joined up thinking and working with GPs, the NHS locally, the housing provider and finally GMFRS. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable social care 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 identify people potentially at risk of fire in their premises

Wider context from the report

“2. There was no identification of the deceased as being potentially at risk of a fire in his premises and no referral to GMFRS. ”

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 a GPHA process to automatically consider fire risks and prevention

Wider context from the report

“3. There was no process for GPHA to automatically consider fire risks and prevention and make referrals to GMFRS for safe and well visits. ”

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 automatic water suppression systems for blocks of flats and individuals at high risk

Wider context from the report

“4. It is clear that GPHA did not have an automatic water suppression system (sprinklers) that could be fitted to properties which comprise blocks of flats and or for individuals at high risk. In addition appropriate smoke alarms and other assistive technology could have been installed. 5. The recipients of this report would be well advised to read and digest the detailed GMFRS Fire Investigation Report and its recommendations which are wholly endorsed by the court. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate sprinkler protection in residential accommodation.

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 refer people at risk of fire to GMFRS

Wider context from the report

“2. There was no identification of the deceased as being potentially at risk of a fire in his premises and no referral to GMFRS. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably identify and refer vulnerable people at risk of fire.

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 GPHA to make referrals to GMFRS for safe and well visits

Wider context from the report

“3. There was no process for GPHA to automatically consider fire risks and prevention and make referrals to GMFRS for safe and well visits. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Safe and Well Visit risk-assessment and review 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

Lack of appropriate smoke alarms and assistive technology

Wider context from the report

“4. It is clear that GPHA did not have an automatic water suppression system (sprinklers) that could be fitted to properties which comprise blocks of flats and or for individuals at high risk. In addition appropriate smoke alarms and other assistive technology could have been installed. 5. The recipients of this report would be well advised to read and digest the detailed GMFRS Fire Investigation Report and its recommendations which are wholly endorsed by the court. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Review contacts closed or classified as non-urgent by the two officers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. All contacts which have been closed or viewed as non-urgent by Officers A and B have been reviewed.”

Source location

2017-0233-Response-by-Manchester-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 September 2017

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

Undertake regular audits of Contact Centre work through the Quality Assurance Team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The Quality Assurance Team are to undertake regular audits of the work undertaken by the Contact Centre.”

Source location

2017-0233-Response-by-Manchester-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 September 2017

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

Continue raising adult social care staff awareness of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service offerings through partnership meetings and consideration of extended partnership working.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. MCC has considered the recommendations of the GMFRS report and will continue with the work currently underway to raise the awareness of the services offered by GMFRS among adult social care staff. There are regular meeting between the Community Safety Officer from GMFRS and MCC to ensure that all options for extending partnership working are considered.”

Source location

2017-0233-Response-by-Manchester-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 September 2017

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

Audit 20% of Contact Centre contacts classified as No Further Action between July and September 2017.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. An audit of 20% of all contacts classed as “NFA” (No Further Action) by the Contact Centre between July 2017 and September 2017 is being undertaken”

Source location

2017-0233-Response-by-Manchester-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 September 2017

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

Explore increasing social work supervision and oversight of Contact Centre officers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. MCC is currently exploring increasing social work supervision and oversight of the Contact Centre officers”

Source location

2017-0233-Response-by-Manchester-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 September 2017

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

    Provide Contact Centre staff training on the Care Act, safeguarding and consent.

    Stated by Manchester City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 September 2017.
  2. 2

    Refer the matter to the Manchester Safeguarding Adults Board for consideration of whether it meets Safeguarding Adults Review criteria.

    Stated by Manchester City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 September 2017.

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 Contact Centre staff training on the Care Act, safeguarding and consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Further training will be provided for all Contact Centre staff in respect of the Care Act, safeguarding and consent. This will be arranged immediately and will be provided by MCC’s Quality Assurance Team.”

Source location

2017-0233-Response-by-Manchester-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 September 2017

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

Refer the matter to the Manchester Safeguarding Adults Board for consideration of whether it meets Safeguarding Adults Review criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. MCC will be referring this matter to Manchester Safeguarding Adults Board for their consideration as to whether this meets the criteria for a Safeguarding Adults Review.”

Source location

2017-0233-Response-by-Manchester-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 September 2017

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026