PFD report

Laura Beth Newlands · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Dec 2015•North Wales (East and Central)

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
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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Delays in scheduling appropriate professional meetings
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concerns
  2. Insufficient DSS input into discharge safety plans
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge documentation
  3. Failure to conduct further assessments when action is required
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable social-care case review and closure decisions
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

Delays in scheduling appropriate professional meetings

Wider context from the report

“2. A delay in scheduling an appropriate meeting of Professionals resulted in a missed opportunity to provide support and protection of a young person at risk and there was not therefore a prompt response to a crisis ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concerns.

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 DSS input into discharge safety plans

Wider context from the report

“1. Although a “safety plan” is prepared by CAMHS at the time of discharge from hospital, there does not appear to be sufficient input to this document by DSS with the result that those caring for a young person at risk may have incomplete written information available to them to properly ensure the safety of the young person. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge documentation.

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 further assessments when action is required

Wider context from the report

“3. The decision to close the case (and then not to reopen the same) by DSS resulted in there being no further assessments conducted at a time when action should have been taken and could have resulted in additional support for the deceased and her family. Such a decision may not have been made if the case had been reviewed by a senior staff member who was not directly involved in the investigation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable social-care case review and closure 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

Failure to obtain independent senior review of case closure decisions

Wider context from the report

“3. The decision to close the case (and then not to reopen the same) by DSS resulted in there being no further assessments conducted at a time when action should have been taken and could have resulted in additional support for the deceased and her family. Such a decision may not have been made if the case had been reviewed by a senior staff member who was not directly involved in the investigation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.