PFD report

Karis Florence Braithwaite · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Sep 2019•East 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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

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 raised4

  1. Failure to document verbal first-responder handovers in patient records
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processes
  2. Failure to ensure first-responder risk information is available to the assessing mental health team
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical handover processes
  3. Failure to elicit relevant information from first responders during assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Incomplete clinical history-taking
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 document verbal first-responder handovers in patient records

Wider context from the report

“1. Important risk information was provided to the Trust by a first responder (paramedic) but was not available to the MHA assessment team. 2. A copy of the PRF form was left with staff but does not appear to have been uploaded to the electronic records or a paper copy provided to the assessing team. 3. The paramedic provided a verbal handover to staff which does not appear to have been documented in the patient’s records. 4. The police officer who attended with Karis also gave evidence as to difficulties in providing a handover to the receiving mental health team. 5. A PFD report was written to the Trust on the 2nd December 2016 noting: There was also relevant information available to the paramedics and police that was not elicited by the assessing team. It became apparent during the course of the Inquest that the police also had access to information which was relevant to the circumstances of the preceding events which would have been relevant to the mental state of the deceased. It would appear that inadequate questions were asked by the receiving hospital team in relation to the circumstances leading to admission. In light of the evidence heard at Ms Braithwaite’s inquest, there is a concern that insufficient steps have been taken by the Trust to improve the handover process from first responders to Trust staff following serious incidents in the community. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical handover 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 ensure first-responder risk information is available to the assessing mental health team

Wider context from the report

“1. Important risk information was provided to the Trust by a first responder (paramedic) but was not available to the MHA assessment team. 2. A copy of the PRF form was left with staff but does not appear to have been uploaded to the electronic records or a paper copy provided to the assessing team. 3. The paramedic provided a verbal handover to staff which does not appear to have been documented in the patient’s records. 4. The police officer who attended with Karis also gave evidence as to difficulties in providing a handover to the receiving mental health team. 5. A PFD report was written to the Trust on the 2nd December 2016 noting: There was also relevant information available to the paramedics and police that was not elicited by the assessing team. It became apparent during the course of the Inquest that the police also had access to information which was relevant to the circumstances of the preceding events which would have been relevant to the mental state of the deceased. It would appear that inadequate questions were asked by the receiving hospital team in relation to the circumstances leading to admission. In light of the evidence heard at Ms Braithwaite’s inquest, there is a concern that insufficient steps have been taken by the Trust to improve the handover process from first responders to Trust staff following serious incidents in the community. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical handover 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 elicit relevant information from first responders during assessment

Wider context from the report

“1. Important risk information was provided to the Trust by a first responder (paramedic) but was not available to the MHA assessment team. 2. A copy of the PRF form was left with staff but does not appear to have been uploaded to the electronic records or a paper copy provided to the assessing team. 3. The paramedic provided a verbal handover to staff which does not appear to have been documented in the patient’s records. 4. The police officer who attended with Karis also gave evidence as to difficulties in providing a handover to the receiving mental health team. 5. A PFD report was written to the Trust on the 2nd December 2016 noting: There was also relevant information available to the paramedics and police that was not elicited by the assessing team. It became apparent during the course of the Inquest that the police also had access to information which was relevant to the circumstances of the preceding events which would have been relevant to the mental state of the deceased. It would appear that inadequate questions were asked by the receiving hospital team in relation to the circumstances leading to admission. In light of the evidence heard at Ms Braithwaite’s inquest, there is a concern that insufficient steps have been taken by the Trust to improve the handover process from first responders to Trust staff following serious incidents in the community. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Incomplete clinical history-taking.

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

Insufficient improvement of handover processes from first responders to Trust staff

Wider context from the report

“1. Important risk information was provided to the Trust by a first responder (paramedic) but was not available to the MHA assessment team. 2. A copy of the PRF form was left with staff but does not appear to have been uploaded to the electronic records or a paper copy provided to the assessing team. 3. The paramedic provided a verbal handover to staff which does not appear to have been documented in the patient’s records. 4. The police officer who attended with Karis also gave evidence as to difficulties in providing a handover to the receiving mental health team. 5. A PFD report was written to the Trust on the 2nd December 2016 noting: There was also relevant information available to the paramedics and police that was not elicited by the assessing team. It became apparent during the course of the Inquest that the police also had access to information which was relevant to the circumstances of the preceding events which would have been relevant to the mental state of the deceased. It would appear that inadequate questions were asked by the receiving hospital team in relation to the circumstances leading to admission. In light of the evidence heard at Ms Braithwaite’s inquest, there is a concern that insufficient steps have been taken by the Trust to improve the handover process from first responders to Trust staff following serious incidents in the community. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical handover processes.

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
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.