PFD report

Lindsey Theresa Hassall · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Nov 2017•Manchester South

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 raised5

  1. Failure to enter engagement notes into the electronic system contemporaneously
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  2. Failure to verify and coordinate necessary referrals from the 136 suite to the GP
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination of referrals between healthcare teams
  3. Failure to make documentation accessible to all relevant staff
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe 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.6

  1. Action

    Require junior doctors to state GP referrals clearly in summary letters and assessment teams to make, document and communicate required PCFT referrals.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 February 2018.
  2. Action

    Develop and display a laminated flowchart guiding s136 handover recording, documentation access and referral processes.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 February 2018.
  3. Action

    Provide staff guidance on accessing notes in and out of hours, including support from colleagues and s136-suite staff when required.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 February 2018.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The concerns about Lifeline/CGL’s records are not a Pennine Care issue, so no further action will be taken.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 enter engagement notes into the electronic system contemporaneously

Wider context from the report

“• Lifeline now known as CGL had dealt with the deceased in the period leading up to her death. The notes relating to that engagement were not input into the electronic system at the time. The inquest was told that the electronic system was updated from the notes after her death. Contemporaneous notes were then destroyed by the worker on the advice of her manager. (Lifeline/CGL) ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 verify and coordinate necessary referrals from the 136 suite to the GP

Wider context from the report

“• The form completed by the 136 suite team was sent to the GP with the box refer to GP ticked. After receipt by the GP practice there was an assumption that any necessary referral had already been made and no referral was discussed or made. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable coordination of referrals between healthcare teams.

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 make documentation accessible to all relevant staff

Wider context from the report

“• The documentation held by Pennine Care was not easily accessible to all of the staff working for Pennine Care which meant that the full history of engagement was not known to workers dealing with her. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe 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 retain contemporaneous engagement notes

Wider context from the report

“• Lifeline now known as CGL had dealt with the deceased in the period leading up to her death. The notes relating to that engagement were not input into the electronic system at the time. The inquest was told that the electronic system was updated from the notes after her death. Contemporaneous notes were then destroyed by the worker on the advice of her manager. (Lifeline/CGL) ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to retain safety-critical source records and evidence.

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 keep records of information provided verbally by Police Officers in the s.136 suite

Wider context from the report

“• There is no provision for a record to be kept of the information, which Police Officers provide verbally to the RAID practitioners in the s.136 suite. The inquest heard that there was a record of the initial circumstances but no further record was kept. (Pennine Care) ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe operation of Section 136 mental health assessment and detention procedures.

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

Require junior doctors to state GP referrals clearly in summary letters and assessment teams to make, document and communicate required PCFT referrals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“▪ Remind all junior doctors that if a person is to be referred back to the care of their GP they make this clear in the summary letter sent to the GP.”

Source location

2017-0429-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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

Develop and display a laminated flowchart guiding s136 handover recording, documentation access and referral processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“▪ Flowchart to be developed which reflects guidance in staff briefing – laminated copy to be displayed in 136 suite so it is available to staff coordinating and undertaking s136 assessments.”

Source location

2017-0429-Responses
Page 1 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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

Provide staff guidance on accessing notes in and out of hours, including support from colleagues and s136-suite staff when required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of the above plan the following actions are in place:”

Source location

2017-0429-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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

Implement recording of police verbal handovers on paper history sheets, with access for the assessing doctor and AMHP and subsequent upload to PARIS.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A plan has been prepared to ensure that staff record information from a verbal handover from the police on a paper history sheet and ensure the assessing doctor and AMHP have access to this so they can review the information. This will be uploaded onto PARIS once the assessment is completed. The following actions are in place:”

Source location

2017-0429-Responses
Page 1 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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

Contact patients notified of a RAID s136 assessment and invite them for GP review to ensure appropriate follow-up.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The relevant practice policies have been reviewed and, as a result of this case and the Regulation 28 Report, a new policy has been implemented to ensure that when notification of an assessment by the RAID team on a section 136 is received by the practice, patients will be contacted and invited for review with a GP to ensure appropriate follow up is in place.”

Source location

2017-0429-Responses
Page 4 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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 the new s136 documentation and referral guidance in staff briefings and local induction processes, and add it to the s136 operating procedure and policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“▪ Advice to be included in staff briefing.”

Source location

2017-0429-Responses
Page 1 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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

The concerns about Lifeline/CGL’s records are not a Pennine Care issue, so no further action will be taken.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Lifeline, now known as CGL, had dealt with the deceased in the period leading up to her death. The notes relating to that engagement were not input onto the electronic system at the time. The inquest was told that the electronic system was updated from the notes after her death. Contemporaneous notes were then destroyed by the worker on the advice of her manager.”

Source location

2017-0429-Responses
Page 2 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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

The practice considers that appropriate GP follow-up was discussed and arranged, and no additional onward referral was necessary at that time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The relevant practice policies have been reviewed and, as a result of this case and the Regulation 28 Report, a new policy has been implemented to ensure that when notification of an assessment by the RAID team on a section 136 is received by the practice, patients will be contacted and invited for review with a GP to ensure appropriate follow up is in place.”

Source location

2017-0429-Responses
Page 4 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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