PFD report

Dale Owen Ricardo Scott Proverbs · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Jan 2015•North 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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised1

  1. Insufficient observation levels for patients in seclusion under the current policy
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    Constant observation is not always appropriate because it may be unnecessarily restrictive; the Code therefore retains its existing overall observation requirement.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 observation levels for patients in seclusion under the current policy

Wider context from the report

“That there were, at the time of Mr Proverbs death, Partnership In Care Policies in place that created a higher standard of observation required for patients on seclusion than the Code of Practice for The Mental Heath Act 1983 prescribed. The Partnerships In Care Policies in place at the time of Mr Proverb’s death, if followed, are likely to have prevented his death. If the Code of Practice for the Mental Heath Act 1983 were to be followed by Partnerships In Care, which is now their policy, then the level of observation for patients in seclusion would not be enough to prevent another fatality were the circumstances to be the same as those surrounding Mr Proverbs death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

Open source report

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

Constant observation is not always appropriate because it may be unnecessarily restrictive; the Code therefore retains its existing overall observation requirement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your main concern is however that the levels of observation recommended in the MHA Code of Practice for patients in seclusion are not sufficient enough to prevent a death from occurring in similar circumstances.”

Source location

2015-0010-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 6 January 2015

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.1

  1. 1

    Complete a thorough review of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice, strengthening requirements for reviewing the ongoing need for seclusion.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 January 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    PIC management is responsible for addressing staff failures to follow observation standards in its policy or the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Complete a thorough review of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice, strengthening requirements for reviewing the ongoing need for seclusion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department of Health has recently completed a thorough review of the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice which, subject to parliamentary approval, will come into effect on 1st April 2015. As part of this procedure the requirements for reviewing seclusion have been strengthened with changes to the timing and frequency of formal reviews of the ongoing need for seclusion.”

Source location

2015-0010-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 6 January 2015

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

PIC management is responsible for addressing staff failures to follow observation standards in its policy or the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Staff failure in this case to adhere to the standards of observation set out either in PIC’s own policy or in the Code of Practice are matters for PIC management. I note that you have sent a copy of your Regulation 28 letter to PIC and I would expect them to address any such outstanding issues.”

Source location

2015-0010-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 6 January 2015

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026