PFD report

Melvin James and Anne-Marie James · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Sep 2017•Black Country

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 incorporate relevant information into discharge assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  2. Failure to communicate relapse warning signs to family
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carers
  3. Failure to make formal post-discharge referral or contact with community mental health services and general practitioner
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after dischargePart of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination and escalation between care providers and mental health servicesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable mental health referral pathways
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 incorporate relevant information into discharge assessment

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that by the time of his discharge on Friday 10th February 2017 and as far as the Hospital were concerned, they recorded he showed no evidence of mental illness. However, the Clinician who dealt with the discharge confirmed that he wasn’t aware of the conversation he had with his brother on the way to Wolverhampton where Mr James was still talking about his delusions including creatures transforming. Significantly, during the inquest he accepted, had he known this he would have formed the view that he was still unwell. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Unreliable hospital discharge 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 communicate relapse warning signs to family

Wider context from the report

“2. He also accepted that there was a missed opportunity in communication and information sharing and it was regrettable they didn’t speak to the family and explain what symptoms to look out for in case of relapse. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carers.

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 formal post-discharge referral or contact with community mental health services and general practitioner

Wider context from the report

“3. Evidence also emerged during the inquest that after discharge, there was no formal referral or contact made with Mental Health services or his General Practitioner based in the Wolverhampton area. There was no evidence of any aftercare being delivered after discharge back into the community. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge; Unreliable coordination and escalation between care providers and mental health services; Unreliable mental health 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

Lack of post-discharge community aftercare

Wider context from the report

“3. Evidence also emerged during the inquest that after discharge, there was no formal referral or contact made with Mental Health services or his General Practitioner based in the Wolverhampton area. There was no evidence of any aftercare being delivered after discharge back into the community. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge; Insufficient social and community care provision to meet care and discharge needs.

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.